■ 

1 

1  • 

j|            MC-.NRLF 

iiii  ill  iiiiii  in 

III        Hh^HII  1  llliiBIPI1 

I 

II  (I  H 

iiillll 

1 

1      $b  gggjLti llllllllf  Bill  III 

11  IaHJW  11 1&1    i  iif)il*i3n7!"n  [IIII  [Ml  11         I     l  I    i    li,''     •  HI      n:      !'  U  i     i''-1'-  <:■■,..       ii    .       .. 

• 

^■H^HH^H^^^^Hl 

MliWIttll  lillfmlilliillltlMlllifillH 

f 
Ifl 

H 

H^^H^HH    111 
11   1        1  111  11 

IB 

I 

1 

8;!i  I! 

l!  ml 

if!  i| 


1 

1 

University  of  California. 


...   THE   LIBRARY   OF 


DRJ/FRANCIS     LIEBER, 
Professor  of/History  and  Law  in  Columbia  College,  New  York. 


,/f    MICH 


THR  GIFT  OF 

AEL    REESE 

Of  San  Francisco. 
1873. 


*         f 


POPULAR    OBJECTIONS 


TO 


UNITARIAN   CHRISTIANITY 


CONSIDERED  AND  ANSWERED. 


IN  SEVEN   DISCOURSES. 


By  GEORGE  W.  BURNAP, 
V 

PASTOR   OP  THE  FIRST  INDEPENDENT   CHURCH   OP   BALTIMORE. 


In  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves." 

Paul. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


BOSTON: 

WM.  CROSBY  AND  H.  P.  NICHOLS, 

111  Washington  Street. 


1848. 


<&8 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1848,  by 

Wm.Orosby  and  H.  P.  Nichols, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


Sf2. 


2- 


CAMBRIDGE 


METCALF      AND      COMPANY 


PRINTERS   TO   THE   UNIVERSITY. 


PREFACE 


The  following  Discourses  were  delivered  in 
the  First  Independent  Church  of  Baltimore,  im- 
mediately after  its  re-opening,  having  undergone 
extensive  repairs.  The  author  took  the  oppor- 
tunity presented  by  the  concourse  of  strangers 
which  resorted  to  the  church  during  some  of  the 
succeeding  Sundays,  to  answer  some  of  the  lead- 
ing objections  which  are  everywhere  current 
against  the  faith  which  is  there  inculcated.  He 
conceives  that  there  is  much  need  of  such  pub- 
lications. 

Since  the  first  promulgation  of  Christianity, 
nothing  has  been  more  misapprehended  and  mis- 
represented than  Unitarianism  at  the  present  day. 
It  is  not  allowed  to  make  its  defence.     It  cannot 


IV  PREFACE. 

obtain  a  hearing.  It  is  classified  with  every 
thing  that  is  bad,  and  then  people  are  warned 
against  looking  into  it,  or  even  hearing  an  expo- 
sition of  its  doctrines. 

Unitarians  are  accused  on  all  occasions  of  be- 
ing unbelievers,  —  of  setting  reason  above  Scrip- 
ture, —  of  expecting  to  be  saved  by  their  own 
merits,  —  of  denying  the  Atonement,  —  of  mu- 
tilating and  explaining  away  the  Scriptures,  — 
of  being  merely  moral  men,  and  preaching  mere 
morality,  —  of  not  being  Evangelical  Christians, 
—  of  advocating  a  system  which  tends  to  infi- 
delity, &c. 

It  was  the  object  of  these  Discourses,  to  meet 
and  answer  these  objections.  After  their  deliv- 
ery, it  was  suggested  to  the  author  that  they 
would  be  useful  when  published  in  the  form  of 
a  book.  It  is  with  the  hope  that  they  may  do 
good,  in  removing  prejudice  and  in  enlightening 
the  minds  of  the  inquiring,  that  they  are  now 
given  to  the  public. 

In  the  concluding  Discourse,  on  the  Unitarian- 
ism  of  Doctor  Watts,  there  will  be  found  some 
interesting  facts  relating  to  the  religious  opinions 


PREFACE. 


and  theological  inquiries  of  that  eminent  Chris- 
tian and  devout  Psalmist.  It  will  be  objected 
by  some,  perhaps,  that  the  extracts  are  ex  parte, 
and  taken  out  of  their  connection.  It  may  be 
answered,  that  the  space  of  a  single  discourse 
did  not  permit  the  subject  to  be  treated  in  any 
other  way.  I  merely  ask  the  reader  to  consider 
with  himself  whether  such  paragraphs  could 
have  been  written  by  a  Trinitarian  in  any  con- 
nection. The  extracts  are  made  from  the  Lon- 
don edition  of  the  year  1810. 


CONTENTS 


DISCOURSE  I. 

The  Position  of  Unitarianism  defined. 

PAGE 

History  of  the  First  Independent  Church  .         .         .      1-6 

Reasons  of  its  Establishment 9 

Consequences  of  it 17 

Literature  of  Unitarianism 22 

Congregationalism 24 

DISCOURSE  II. 

Unitarians  not  Infidels. 

Unitarians  charged  with  Infidelity        .....  30 

What  is  Belief  in  Christ? 32 

The  Charge  of  relying  too  much  on  Reason         ...  34 

The  Use  of  Reason  in  Religion 37 

The  Merits  of  Christ 39 

The  Atonement 43 


DISCOURSE  III. 
Explaining  the  Bible  and  explaining  it  away. 

Unitarians  desire  to  have  a  Pure  Text  ....  51 

Objectionable  Texts 53 

Unitarians  do  not  explain  away  the  Scriptures     ...  56 

Introduction  of  the  Gospel  of  John  ....  57 

The  Form  of  Baptism 61 

Trinitarians  obliged  to  explain  away  the  Bible  .        .  66 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

DISCOURSE  IV. 

Unitarianism  not  mere  Morality. 

What  is  mere  Morality  ? 75 

Unitarian  Worship 76 

The  Lord's  Supper 79 

Religious  Experience 80 

Human  Nature     . 85 

Morality  and  Religion 88 

DISCOURSE  V. 

Unitarianism  Evangelical  Christianity. 

The  Pretensions  of  Evangelical  Christians           ...  93 

World's  Convention 94 

Meaning  of  the  Term  Evangelical 100 

Evangelical  Doctrines  not  found  in  the  Gospels         .        .  103 
The  Bible  is  the  Creed  of  Unitarians            .         .        .        .105 

All  Sects  are  exclusive     . 109 

DISCOURSE  VI. 

Unitarianism  does  not  tend  to  Unbelief. 

"Who  are  to  be  considered  as  real  Believers           .        .         .  113 

Unitarianism  not  the  Half-way  House  to  Infidelity  .         .  115 

Objections  to  Revelation       . 118 

Unitarianism  intrinsically  probable            .         .         .         .  120 

Trinitarianism  essentially  incredible     .....  124 

Deism  not  the  natural  Result  of  Unitarian  Preaching       .  126 

Cases  of  Deism  incident  to  a  State  of  Transition          ..        .  129 


DISCOURSE   VII. 

Doctor  Watts  a  Unitarian. 

Watts  educated  a  Trinitarian ,136 

Considered  the  Holy  Ghost  a  Personification       .        .        .  139 

How  he  justified  Doxologies  to  the  Holy  Ghost       .        .  141 

His  Opinion  of  Derivation 146 

His  Explanation  of  the  Phrase  "  Son  of  God  "          .         .  152 

The  Covenant  of  Redemption 155 

Solemn  Address  to  the  Deity 163 


DISCOURSE    I. 


THE   POSITION  OF   UNITARIANISM  DEFINED. 

Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  Com- 
eth   WHEN    YE    SHALL    NEITHER   IN    THIS    MOUNTAIN,    NOR   YET 

at   Jerusalem,   worship   the  Father.      Ye    worship   ye 

KNOW  NOT  WHAT.  We  KNOW  WHAT  WE  WORSHIP  )  FOR  SAL- 
VATION is  of  the  Jews.     But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now 

IS,  WHEN  THE  TRUE  WORSHIPPERS  SHALL  WORSHIP  THE  FA- 
THER IN  SPIRIT  AND  IN  TRUTH  ;  FOR  THE  FATHER  SEEKETH 
SUCH  TO  WORSHIP  HIM.  GoD  IS  A  SPIRIT}  AND  THEY  THAT 
WORSHIP    HIM     MUST    WORSHIP    HIM     IN    SPIRIT    AND    IN    TRUTH. 

—  John  iv.  21  -  24. 

These  are  some  of  the  sublimest  words  which 
were  ever  uttered  on  earth.  It  is  in  partial  fulfil- 
ment of  them  that  we,  at  the  distance  of  more  than 
eighteen  centuries,  "  with  half  the  convex  globe  be- 
tween," are  assembled  to  worship  God  in  the  name 
of  Christ  in  this  beautiful  temple  built  upon  this  dis- 
tant shore,  when  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  which 
then  glittered  afar  in  Oriental  splendor,  has  long  ago 
been  razed  to  its  foundations.  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
describe  the  joy  with  which  we  again  assemble  in 
this  sacred  place.  To  many  of  you  it  has  become 
endeared  by  the  most  tender  and  holy  associations  ; 
1 


2  THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

with  the  Sabbath's  rest  and  the  Sabbath's  musings, 
with  the  soul's  most  consecrated  hours  of  commun- 
ion with  God,  with  the  divine  teachings  of  Christ's 
blessed  Gospel,  with  the  moving  symbols  of  his  sor- 
rows and  his  death,  with  the  anthems  of  God's  praise, 
with  the  hopes  and  anticipations  of  heaven,  with  the 
memory  of  kindred  and  companions,  who,  you  trust, 
are  now  worshipping  in  that  temple  not  made  with 
hands  eternal  in  the  heavens. 

I  have  thought  to  add  interest  to  this  first  day  of 
our  restoration  to  our  renovated  house  of  prayer,  by 
rehearsing  the  history  of  this  church  and  religious 
society,  by  re-stating  the  principles  upon  which  it  was 
founded,  the  objects  to  which  its  energies  are  direct- 
ed, the  changes  which  have  passed  over  the  relig- 
ious world  since  its  establishment,  and  the  prospects 
which  the  future  presents  of  the  dissemination  of 
those  great  truths  which  it  maintains  as  vital  to  Chris- 
tianity and  to  man. 

On  the  12th  of  October,  1816,  there  appeared  in 
one  or  more  of  the  Baltimore  newspapers  the  follow- 
ing advertisement  :  —  "  Divine  service  will  be  per- 
formed by  the  Rev.  Doctor  Freeman  of  Boston  to- 
morrow at  the  Hall  belonging  to  Mr.  Gibney  in 
South  Charles  Street,  to  commence  at  11  o'clock 
A.  M.  and  at  half  past  3  P.  M." 

Accordingly,  at  the  appointed  hours,  an  audience 
assembled  and  services  were  held.  On  the  next 
Sunday,  public  worship  was  again  celebrated  at  the 


THE   POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM   DEFINED.  3 

same  hours  and  in  the  same  place.  Those  who  lis- 
tened to  the  exercises  of  those  two  days  had  been 
accustomed  to  worship  in  the  various  churches  in  the 
city  ;  but  they  now  heard  an  exposition  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  more 
reasonable,  consistent,  and  edifying,  than  any  to  which 
they  had  ever  given  their  attention. 

To  many,  perhaps  most,  of  the  hearers,  the  denom- 
ination to  which  the  speaker  belonged  was  wholly 
unknown.  Their  judgment  of  what  he  uttered  was 
formed,  therefore,  either  without  prejudice,  or  in  op- 
position to  the  bias  there  always  exists  against  any 
thing  that  is  new.  A  simultaneous  desire  sprang  up 
in  the  minds  of  many  who  were  there,  to  procure  for 
themselves  and  their  children  a  stated  ministry  by 
which  such  views  of  Christianity  might  be  inculcated 
and  maintained. 

But  who  was  Doctor  Freeman,  and  why  does  he 
preach  in  a  hall  ?  Among  all  the  various  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  is  there  no  pulpit  in  the  city  to 
which  he  may  be  invited  ?  Not  one.  He  had  been 
almost  isolated  for  more  than  thirty  years  for  con- 
science' sake.  For  more  than  thirty  years,  in  the 
way  called  heresy  he  and  the  people  of  his  charge 
had  worshipped  the  God  of  their  fathers.  His  per- 
sonal history  is,  that  he  was  a  graduate  of  Harvard 
University  of  the  class  of  J  777. 

He  pursued  his  preparatory   theological  studies 
principally  at  Cambridge,  and  in  October,  1782,  be- 


4  TrfE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

came  Reader  at  "  King's  Chapel,"  an  Episcopal 
church  in  Boston,  and  in  the  April  following  was 
chosen  Pastor  of  the  church.  He  continued  to  read 
the  Episcopal  Book  of  Common  Prayer  till  1785, 
when  a  committee  of  the  proprietors  was  appointed 
to  revise  that  manual  of  devotion,  and  present  it  in  a 
form  more  agreeable,  as  they  thought,  to  the  word  of 
God.  The  result  of  their  labor  was  the  production, 
in  substance,  of  the  "  Chapel  Liturgy,"  a  beautiful 
and  almost  faultless  form  of  public  devotions,  now 
used  by  that  ancient  society.  This  change,  and  as 
they  thought  reform,  was  brought  about  mainly  by 
the  studies  and  ministrations  of  their  pastor,  who 
gave  a  course  of  lectures  explanatory  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  relation  to  those  doctrines  which  were  left 
out  of  their  new  book  of  prayer.  Thus  the  most 
ancient  Episcopal  church  in  New  England  became 
the  first  Unitarian  church  in  America. 

Nothing,  then,  could  have  been  more  appropriate, 
than  that  the  patriarch  of  Unitarianism  in  America 
should  have  been  the  founder  of  Unitarianism  in 
Maryland. 

The  desire  to  have  a  church  in  Baltimore,  mod- 
elled upon  the  simple  principles  of  the  Gospel,  ex- 
cited by  the  preaching  of  Doctor  Freeman,  found 
expression  in  a  meeting  held  by  several  of  the  citi- 
zens on  the  10th  day  of  February,  1817,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  organizing  a  religious  society,  and  taking  into 
consideration  the  best  means  of  erecting  a  building 
for  public  worship. 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  5 

At  this  meeting  they  adopted  a  constitution,  and 
gave  to  the  society  the  legal  title  of  "  The  First  In- 
dependent Church  of  Baltimore."  They  also  ap- 
pointed nine  trustees  to  superintend  the  concerns  of 
the  society  and  the  erection  of  the  building.  The 
corner-stone  was  laid  on  the  5th  day  of  June,  1817, 
in  the  presence  of  all  the  trustees,  most  of  the  sub- 
scribers, and  many  others. 

In  the  centre  of  the  stone,  a  plate  was  deposited, 
bearing  the  following  inscription  :  — 

In  Greek, —  "  To  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  in- 
visible, the  only  wise  God." 

In  English,  —  "  This  corner-stone  of  the  First  In- 
dependent Church  of  Baltimore  was  laid  on  the  5th 
day  of  June,  1817,  under  the  direction  of  the  fol- 
lowing Trustees  and  Building  Committee,  viz.  Hen- 
ry Pay  son,  Ezekiel  Freeman,  Cumberland  D.  Wil- 
liams, James  W.  McCulloh,  Tobias  Watkins,  Na- 
thaniel Williams,  William  Child,  Charles  H.  Apple- 
ton,  John  H.  Poor,  and  Isaac  Phillips.  Maximilian 
Godfroy,  Architect,  and  John  Ready,  Builder." 

The  church  was  completed  in  October,  1818, 
and  dedicated  on  the  29th  of  the  same  month  by  Dr. 
Freeman,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Colman,  of  Hingham, 
Mass.,  Dr.  Freeman  preaching  the  sermon. 

The  pulpit  was  supplied  by  different  preachers 
from  Boston  and  the  neighbourhood,  till  May,  1819, 
when  the  Rev.  Jared  Sparks  was  ordained  as  the 
first  pastor  of  this  church  ;  his  ordination  took  place 


6  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARLANISM    DEFINED. 

on  the  5th  of  the  month,  and  Mr.,  afterwards  Dr. 
Channing,  of  Boston,  delivered  the  customary  dis- 
course. 

The  5th  of  May,  1819,  was  a  memorable  day  in 
the  theological  history  of  this  country.  It  might  be 
called  the  Pentecost  of  American  Unitarianism.  In 
setting  apart  a  minister  to  teach  a  faith,  which,  al- 
though the  most  ancient,  appeared  to  the  community 
in  which  it  was  to  be  preached  comparatively  a  new 
doctrine,  Mr.  Channing  thought  it  incumbent  on  him 
to  make  an  open,  plain,  and  candid  statement  of  the 
principles  which  this  new  edifice  was  raised  to  main- 
tain and  disseminate.  Into  better  hands  that  task 
could  not  have  fallen.  Circumstances  made  that  dis- 
course a  confession  of  faith,  a  manifesto  of  principles, 
a  declaration  of  independence,  to  a  new  association 
of  the  followers  of  Christ.  For  its  purpose  it  was 
perfect.  So  clear  are  its  statements,  so  simple  its 
language,  so  grand  and  comprehensive  the  truths  it 
unfolds,  such  earnestness,  conviction,  and  candor  per- 
vade it  all,  that  it  leaves  very  little  to  be  desired,  and 
very  little  to  be  added.  It  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion. None  who  heard  it  will  ever  forget  that  day. 
Its  publication,  which  took  place  immediately  after, 
was  followed  by  still  more  important  results.  On 
the  printed  page  it  appeared  no  less  striking,  original, 
powerful,  and  convincing,  than  it  had  done  in  deliv- 
ery. It  spread  over  the  country  with  wonderful  ra- 
pidity.   It  was  reprinted  and  circulated  by  thousands, 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  7 

and  no  pamphlet,  with  one  exception,  and  that  a  po- 
litical publication,  ever  attracted  in  this  country  so 
wide  and  universal  attention. 

Its  author,  before  not  widely,  though  favorably, 
known,  soon  rose  to  the  highest  literary  eminence, 
and  has  been  since  acknowledged  as  one  of  the  great- 
est masters  of  the  English  tongue,  even  in,  the  jeal- 
ous judgment  of  our  mother  land.  His  works  a*re 
more  read  in  England  than  those  of  any  other  theo- 
logian. Almost  every  year  produces  a  new  edition 
of  them  in  this  country,  and  this  sermon,  incorporat- 
ed into  his  works,  has,  on  the  whole,  been  more  read 
than  any  other,  perhaps,  that  has  been  delivered  in 
modern  times. 

This  visit  of  Mr.  Channing  to  Baltimore  was  the 
cause  of  a  religious  movement  in  another  city,  quite 
as  important  as  this.  On  his  way  home,  he  stopped 
a  short  time  at  New  York.  His  friends  attempted  to 
procure  him  a  place  to  preach  in,  on  Sunday.  To 
obtain  a  church  for  him  was  hopeless,  and  he  held 
services  in  a  private  house.  Those  services  gave 
being  to  a  religious  society,  which  has  since  expand- 
ed into  two  of  the  most  beautiful  and  well-attended 
churches  in  the  city. 

But  to  return  to  Baltimore.  The  plain  avowal  of 
principles  and  candid  declaration  of  purposes  made 
by  Mr.  Channing,  while  they  gave  clearness  of  view, 
definiteness  of  doctrine,  and  concentration  of  action 
to  the  new  church,  drew  more  sharply  the  line  of  de- 


8  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

marcation  by  which  it  was  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  Christian  world,  and  perhaps  made  it  more  diffi- 
cult to  obtain  even  a  hearing  for  a  theology  so  diver- 
gent from  the  doctrines  inculcated  in  most  of  the  pul- 
pits in  the  city.  The  whole  population  was  moved. 
Clergy  and  people  vied  with  each  other  in  heaping 
opprobrium  upon  the  new  sect.  The  churches  rang 
from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath  with  warning  and  denuncia- 
tion. The  whole  vocabulary  of  abuse  was  ransacked 
and  exhausted  for  terms  of  reprobation  and  contempt 
sufficiently  strong  to  express  the  general  feelings  of 
abhorrence  and  detestation  towards  this  association 
of  the  disciples  of  Christ.  Not  only  was  their  faith 
assailed  as  dangerous  and  damnable,  but  their  per- 
sonal characters  were  aspersed  as  immoral  and  un- 
worthy of  the  esteem  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

And  what  had  they  done  to  deserve  all  this  ? 
They  had  withdrawn  from  other  churches  to  estab- 
lish a  worship,  as  they  honestly  believed,  more  con- 
sonant with  the  truth  of  God's  word.  They  were 
doing  what  they  conscientiously  thought  to  be  their 
duty.  They  were  exercising  a  right  guaranteed  to 
every  citizen  in  this  country,  of  worshipping  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience. 
Their  very  position  was  a  sufficient  pledge  of  their 
sincerity.  It  was  no  pleasure,  and  certainly  no 
profit,  to  them  to  dissent  from  their  fellow-Christians. 
They  would  have  better  consulted  their  own  peace 
by  remaining  where  they  were,  and  silently  acquies- 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  V 

cing  in  modes  of  worship  which  their  judgments  could 
not  approve.  They  did  not  establish  this  church  in 
the  wantonness  of  self-will,  or  that  they  might  from 
it  hurl  anathema  and  defiance  upon  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world.  They  denied  no  man's  Christianity  on 
account  of  the  errors  of  faith  which  they  apprehend- 
ed him  to  entertain.  They  condemned  no  man  for 
his  creed  ;  they  simply  stated  what  seemed  to  them 
true,  and  what  false,  in  it,  according  to  the  light  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  They  saw  and  acknowledged 
what  appeared  to  them  to  be  good  and  true  in  every 
system  of  faith  and  discipline  which  prevailed  around 
them. 

In  the  Catholics,  they  recognized  the  most  ancient 
embodiment  of  the  Christian  faith  and  ritual.  Some 
of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Christian  name 
have  been  of  its  communion.  In  its  spirit  and  its 
worship,  they  recognized  the  manifestation  of  the 
profoundest  reverence  that  has  ever  been  exhibited 
in  the  world,  but,  in  their  judgment,  a  reverence 
unreasoning  and  indiscriminate,  which  has  gathered 
around  the  accidents  of  Christianity  with  quite  as 
much  devotion  as  around  its  real  substance  ;  a  rever- 
ence which  embraces,  with  equal  intensity,  the  accre- 
tions which  a  thousand  years  of  intellectual  darkness 
through  which  it  passed  have  associated  with  its  es- 
sential rites  and  doctrines,  as  the  great  truths  which 
its  ritual  is  intended  to  represent  and  perpetuate. 

On  entering  a  Catholic  church,  they  saw  an  image 


10  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

of  the  crucified  Saviour,  before  which  the  multitude 
bowed  down.  Their  hearts,  too,  were  moved  by  the 
sculptured  agonies  of  the  man  of  sorrows,  and  it  was 
no  want  of  affectionate  reverence  which  led  them  to 
question  the  propriety  of  such  an  exhibition.  But 
they  could  not  avoid  recollecting  the  prohibition,  dat- 
ing fifteen  centuries  earlier  than  Christianity  itself,  — 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image, 
or  the  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above 
or  the  earth  beneath.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down 
thyself  to  them  nor  serve  them."  This  prohibition 
is  peremptory,  positive,  and  absolute,  and  made  by 
Him  who  created  the  human  heart,  and  who  knows 
infinitely  better  than  we  the  perversions  to  which  the 
religious  principle  is  liable. 

And  even  if  images  were  permitted  in  Christian 
churches,  they  felt  that,  by  the  selection  of  the  sad- 
dest scene  of  Christ's  history  as  the  only  one  pre- 
sented to  the  senses,  the  Catholic  Church  had  given 
an  undue  shade  of  gloom  to  his  whole  religion.  The 
cross  of  Christ  was  thus  made  to  cast  its  dark  shadow, 
not  only  over  the  whole  life  of  Christ,  but  over  the 
whole  life  of  the  Christian  world,  and  caused  it,  in  the 
apprehension  of  multitudes,  to  be  constituted  of  pen- 
ances and  mortifications,  rather  than  cheerful  and 
grateful  obedience.  The  darkness  that  settled  on  the 
hills  of  Judea  at  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion  did  not 
last  long.  The  bright  sun  shone  before  and  after. 
There  was  an  hour  when  Christ  rejoiced,  and  the 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  11 

mount  of  transfiguration  must  be  a  better  representa- 
tion of  the  glory  and  joy  to  which  he  ascended,  than 
the  cross  of  Calvary  which  he  left  behind.  The  altar 
service  seemed  to  them  rather  Judaic  than  Christian, 
inasmuch  as  the  main  employment  and  office  of 
Christ  was  that  of  Teacher.  He  proclaimed  himself 
"  the  Light  of  the  world,"  and  his  parting  charge  to 
his  Apostles  was,  "  Go,  teach  all  nations." 

Altars  were  done  away.  Sacrifices  for  ever 
ceased  with  the  abolition  of  the  Jewish  religion,  of 
which  they  made  a  part. 

The  celebration  of  public  worship  in  a  dead  lan- 
guage —  a  language  which  has  ceased  to  be  spoken 
for  a  thousand  years  —  seemed  to  them  to  savour  of  an 
unquestioning  attachment  to  arbitrary  and  obsolete 
forms,  rather  than  of  a  wise  and  allowable  conformity 
to  the  altered  condition  of  the  world  ;  and  the  invo- 
cation of  the  Virgin,  a  mortal  like  ourselves,  made 
it  impossible  for  them  to  acquiesce  in  the  ritual  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

In  the  Methodists,  the  next  most  numerous  de- 
nomination by  which  they  were  surrounded,  they 
recognized  a  living  and  vital  member  of  Christ's 
body.  In  their  genial,  social,  and  earnest  spirit, 
they  saw  a  resemblance  to  primitive  Christianity, 
when  "  the  disciples  were  of  one  accord  in  one 
place,"  "and  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  and 
singleness  of  heart." 

They  looked  on  Wesley  as  an  instrument  in  the 


12  THE    POSITION    OF    ITNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

hands  of  Providence  of  breaking  the  paralyzing  spell 
of  a  ritual  religion,  and  adapting  the  administration 
of  the  Gospel  to  the  poor,  the  ignorant,  and  the  iso- 
lated. They  saw,  in  some  parts  of  their  church  or- 
ganization, and  in  their  freedom  from  written  creeds, 
an  approach  to  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  his  disciples  free. 

Yet  there  was  one  feature  of  their  worship  which 
rendered  it  impossible  for  the  founders  of  this  church 
to  join  habitually  in  it.  No  small  part  of  their  devo- 
tions was  directed  to  Christ.  God  is  the  only  proper 
object  of  religious  worship.  He  has  strictly  forbid- 
den divine  homage  to  be  addressed  to  any  other  being 
besides  himself.  And  Christ,  before  he  left  the 
world,  was  equally  explicit  in  enjoining  it  on  his 
disciples,  not  to  pray  to  him,  when  he  should  be 
exalted  to  heaven,  but  to  pray  to  God  in  his  name. 
"  And  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  nothing.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the 
Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you." 

To  those  who  built  this  house  as  the  place  of  their 
worship,  the  Presbyterian  door  to  the  fold  of  Christ 
was  closed,  for  over  it  was  written  a  creed  which  it 
was  impossible  for  them  to  subscribe,  and  which  said, 
in  effect,  —  u  Let  no  one  enter  here  who  does  not  ad- 
mit the  tri-personality  of  God,  the  total,  constitutional 
corruption  of  human  nature,  and  the  exclusive  agency 
of  God  in  every  act  of  man  that  is  acceptable  in  his 
sight."     It  was  impossible  for  them  to  approach  the 


THE   POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  13 

table  of  communion  in  that  church,  for  it  was  fenced 
about  with  execrations  on  those  who  should  partake 
of  the  elements,  not  believing  that  their  humble  Mas- 
ter, who  died  on  the  cross  to  save  them,  was  at  the 
same  time  the  ever-living  Jehovah,  to  whom  he  com- 
mended his  departing  spirit,  and  to  whom  he  prayed, 
"  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?" 
Many  had  found  refuge  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Its  more  rational  teaching  and  milder  discipline  they 
thought  more  calculated  to  embrace  and  edify  the 
various  shades  of  belief  which  will  ever  be  found 
among  imperfect  and  fallible  mortals.  To  them  there 
was  an  intrinsic  respectability  in  its  dignified  forms, 
and  a  conservatism  in  its  stability,  which  contrasted 
well  with  the  more  informal  modes  of  organization 
and  worship.  In  the  religion  of  the  Prayer  Book 
they  could  acquiesce,  for  to  it  had  been  contributed 
the  piety  of  many  ages.  Some  of  its  devotions,  for 
tenderness  and  sublimity,  are  nowhere  exceeded  out 
of  the  Psalms  of  the  ancient  people  of  God.  But  its 
theology  they  conceived  to  be  unfounded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  irreconcilable  to  right  reason  when  calmly 
examined  by  an  enlightened  and  reflecting  mind. 
Its  articles  of  faith  were  adopted  in  England  in  the 
twilight  of  the  Reformation,  as  a  matter  of  state  pol- 
icy, and  were  a  compromise  between  the  advancing 
Protestantism  of  the  school  of  Geneva  and  the  re- 
ceding dogmas  of  the  Papal  ages.  Their  only  pre- 
tence to  authority  at   the   present  day,  and  in  this 


14  THE    POSITION    OF   TJNITAMANISM    DEFINED. 

country,  is  their  being  contained  in  the  same  binding 
with  some  of  the  most  exquisite  devotions  in  the  Eng- 
lish tongue.  Not  more  than  half  of  those,  perhaps, 
who  use  the  devotions  ever  read  the  articles  of  faith. 

Had  the  creed  and  the  devotions  been  kept  sepa- 
rate, the  Prayer  Book  would  have  been  nearly  unex- 
ceptionable. But  the  most  unscriptural,  and,  in  their 
judgment,  objectionable,  part  of  the  creed  was  woven 
into  the  liturgy,  so  as  to  implicate  those  who  joined 
in  it  in  a  breach  of  the  first  commandment.  The 
God  who  gave  the  first  commandment  must  be  sup- 
posed to  be  the  same  who  gave  the  fourth.  In  the 
fourth  he  is  identified  as  "  Jehovah,  who  made  heav- 
en and  earth  and  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is."  That 
Being,  in  the  first  commandment,  enjoins,  —  "  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me."  But  he  who 
joins  in  the  Episcopal  service  first  prays,  as  he  ought, 
to  "  God,  the  Father  of  heaven."  Then  he  prays 
to  another  God,  —  "  O  God,  the  Son."  Not  only  is 
he  another  God,  but  he  has  another  name  and  another 
function,  —  uO  God,  the  Son,  Redeemer  of  the 
world."  God  is  a  spirit,  but  this  second  God  has  a 
body,  and  is  addressed  as  having  human  attributes, 
parts,  and  passions,  and  having  been  subjected  to 
human  sufferings  :  —  "  By  thy  holy  nativity  and  cir- 
cumcision, by  thine  agony  and  bloody  sweat." 

A  God  who  has  been  born  and  circumcised  must 
be  another  God,  essentially  as  well  as  numerically 
different  from  the  Almighty  Creator  of  heaven  and 


THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM   DEFINED.  15 

earth,  who  inhabiteth  immensity  and  eternity,  whom 
no  eye  hath  seen  or  can  see,  the  blessed  and  only 
Potentate. 

Now  there  is  no  such  God  as  God  the  Son,  there 
is  no  such  name,  there  are  no  such  words  as  u  God 
the  Son"  in  the  Scriptures. 

Then  a  third  God  is  introduced,  with  still  another 
name  and  function,  —  uO  God,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son."  There 
is  no  such  God  as  "  God  the  Holy  Ghost "  revealed 
to  us  in  the  Scriptures.  There  is  not  a  single  in- 
stance of  worship  addressed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Bible  to  the  end.  There  is  no 
such  name  or  phrase  as  "  God  the  Holy  Ghost  "  in 
the  sacred  writings. 

The  believers  in  "  one  God  and  one  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  could 
not  but  feel  aggrieved  that  such  unscriptural  expres- 
sions should  have  been  incorporated  into  the  forms 
of  public  worship.  Their  devotions  were  disturbed, 
their  edification  obstructed,  and  they  therefore  sought 
a  place  where  they  could  worship  God  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  instead  of  worshipping  Christ  as  "  God 
the  Son." 

Another  reason  for  dissent  from  the  Episcopal  ser- 
vice was  the  repetition  of  a  creed  of  human  device. 
This  appeared  to  them  especially  objectionable  in  a 
Protestant  sect,  as  the  only  authority  upon  which  the 
creeds  are  received  is  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 


16  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

whose  general  authority  that  sect  had  rejected,  and 
whose  infallibility  it  had  denied.  From  that  Church 
it  had  consented  to  tako  a  creed,  or  rather  two 
creeds,  in  England  three  creeds,  all  inconsistent  with 
each  other,  and  by  constant  public  repetition  to  hand 
them  down  unexamined  and  unchanged  from  age  to 
age. 

For  these  causes,  the  founders  of  this  church 
withdrew  from  the  various  communions  with  which 
they  had  been  associated,  and  sought  for  themselves  a 
new  place  of  worship.  And  they  were  true  to  their 
principles.  They  deposited  in  this  desk  a  copy  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  the  only  foundation  of  their 
faith,  the  only  infallible  depository  of  truth,  the  only 
sure  guide  of  life.  They  opened  the  font  of  baptism 
to  all  who  felt  it  their  duty  to  consecrate  their  chil- 
dren to  God,  to  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
spread  the  table  of  communion  to  all  who  acknowl- 
edged their  allegiance  to  Christ  as  "  the  Way,  the 
Truth,  and  the  Life."  They  repelled  no  humble 
disciple  from  it  by  unintelligible  mysteries  pr  incom- 
prehensible articles  of  faith.  They  published  no 
creed.  They  left  every  man  to  form  his  own.  They 
did  better  than  to  publish  a  creed.  They  made  a 
selection  from  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  most 
striking  texts  which  embodied  their  faith,  inculcated 
their  obligations,  and  expressed  their  hopes  and  as- 
pirations, and  wrote  them  down  on  those  beautiful 
tablets  to  be  seen  and  read  of  all  men,  as  a  public 


THE    POSITION    OF   TJNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  17 

declaration  of  their  standing  as  believers  in  God,  and 
in  the  divine  mediation  of  Christ,  and  as  a  perpetual 
and  emphatic,  though  silent,  refutation  of  the  slanders 
everywhere  propagated  against  them  as  atheists  and 
infidels. 

In  their  first  clergyman  they  had  selected  a  man 
abundantly  able  to  make  good  their  position,  and  to 
vindicate  to  the  world  the  faith  which  they  professed. 
The  next  year  after  his  ordination,  he  published  a 
volume  of  "  Letters  on  the  Ministry,  Ritual,  and 
Doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church," 
which  placed  him  at  once  in  the  first  rank  of  theolog- 
ical scholars  in  this  country.  This  was  followed  up, 
in  1821,  by  the  establishment  of  a  religious  period- 
ical, "  The  Unitarian  Miscellany,"  a  work  pub- 
lished monthly,  and  filled  with  thorough  and  able  dis- 
cussions of  the  theological  topics  of  the  day,  but 
chiefly  devoted  to  the  statement  and  defence  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  as  understood  by  Unitarians. 
The  matter  for  this  periodical  was  mainly  furnished 
by  Mr.  Sparks,  in  addition  to  the  labor  of  writing 
for  his  weekly  ministrations.  This  was  kept  up  for 
nearly  three  years.  In  this  double  office  of  preacher 
and  editor,  an  amount  of  intellectual  toil  was  sus- 
tained by  him  truly  astonishing,  and  credible  only  to 
those  who  have  measured  the  capacities  of  human 
endurance,  and  learned  the  grand  secret  of  the  econ- 
omy of  time. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in  the  whole  range  of 
2 


18  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

theological  literature,  three  volumes  of  equal  com- 
pass, which  contain  so  much  and  such  accurate  infor- 
mation on  the  most  interesting  subjects  of  religious 
inquiry.  It  is  rare  to  find  in  theological  controversy 
so  much  candor  of  statement,  and  such  fairness  of 
reasoning,  such  firmness  of  persuasion,  united  with  so 
much  charity  for  the  opinions  of  others.  They  are 
a  monument  of  theological  attainment  and  literary  in- 
dustry, which  sets  a  high  mark  for  the  clergy  of  our 
country. 

But  their  author  had  undertaken  4abors  too  great 
for  the  time  as  well  as  the  strength  of  one  man,  and 
his  health  at  length  sunk  under  them,  and  he  retired 
from  the  ministry  to  win  a  wider  fame  and  a  still 
higher  reputation  among  the  historians  of  his  country. 

His  place  as  pastor  of  the  church  and  editor  of  the 
Miscellany  was  temporarily  supplied  by  the  Rev.  Mr., 
afterwards  Dr.  Greenwood,  who  had  lately  retired  in 
ill  health  from  Church  Green  in  Boston,  and  had 
sought  restoration  in  a  milder  climate.  Under  his 
management  the  Miscellany  lost  nothing  of  its  literary 
power,  though  perhaps  something  of  the  depth  of  its 
theological  discussions.  As  a  preacher,  Mr.  Green- 
wood had  few  superiors.  He  was  made  for  a  cler- 
gyman. His  taste  in  composition  was  perfect,  his 
voice  deep  and  sonorous,  his  manner  serious,  affec- 
tionate, and  impressive.  And  he  was  long  a  bright 
and  shining  light  in  the  churches.  On  the  restora- 
tion of  his  health,  he  returned  to  Boston,  and   be- 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  19 

came  the  colleague  of  Dr.  Freeman,  whose  history- 
has  already  been  narrated.  With  his  departure,  the 
Miscellany  was  discontinued,  having  reached  its  sixth 
volume,  and  done  much  good.  Its  circulation  was 
extensive,  and  it  had  enlightened  many  dark  minds, 
removed  many  prejudices,  and  convinced  many  in- 
quirers that  religion  was  consistent  with  reason,  and 
Christianity  unencumbered  with  irreconcilable  contra- 
dictions. 

From  1824  to  1827,  the  pulpit  was  supplied  by 
different  clergymen,  generally  from  Boston  and  the 
neighbourhood,  many  of  them  highly  distinguished  by 
position,  talents,  and  acquirements.  In  September 
of  1827,  the  present  pastor  preached  for  the  first  time 
from  this  pulpit,  fyi  the  following  April  he  was  or- 
dained, and  from  that  time  to  this  the  pulpit  has  nev- 
er been  supplied  by  the  society  for  a  single  Sabbath. 
In  the  space  of  fifteen  years,  the  church  has  been 
closed  but  three  half-days  on  account  of  the  pastor's 
failure  to  officiate. 

Since  the  very  beginning,  no  religious  society  ev- 
er struggled  with  more  difficulties,  or  surmounted 
them  with  more  indomitable  courage  and  persever- 
ance. It  has  been  twice  nearly  prostrated  by  com- 
mercial revulsions,  and  has  often  suffered  severe  loss- 
es by  emigration.  However,  "  having  obtained  help 
of  God,  we  continue  unto  this  day."  The  smiles  of 
a  gracious  Providence  have  been  granted  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  society  in  their  temporal  affairs  in  more 


20  THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

than  ordinary  measure,  and  this  beautiful  and  reno- 
vated temple  is  witness  that  they  are  willing  to  set 
apart  a  portion  of  God's  blessings  to  beautify  his 
sanctuary  and  to  honor  his  worship.  u  Pray  for  the 
peace  of  Jerusalem.  They  shall  prosper  that  love 
thee." 

But  the  building  of  this  church  was  not  an  isolated 
nor  an  inconsequential  event.  It  was  an  epoch  in 
the  theological  history  of  the  country.  Its  effects 
were  immediate  and  decisive,  and  their  operation  has 
gone  on  deepening  and  widening  from  that  day  to  this. 
The  sentiments  which  were  here  openly  professed 
had  been  silently  spreading  in  various  parts  of  the 
country  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  In 
New  England  especially,  many  independent  inquirers 
had,  without  consultation  or  concert,  arrived  at  near- 
ly the  same  conclusions  from  a  careful  examination 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  But  their  opinions,  when 
known,  did  not  exclude  them  from  ministerial  inter- 
course with  their  brethren  in  the  same  communion. 
The  publication  of  the  discourse  of  Mr.  Channing  at 
the  ordination  of  Mr.  Sparks  revealed  to  each  party 
the  ground  on  which  they  stood.  It  was  attacked  by 
the  theological  professors  at  Andover,  and  defended 
by  those  at  Cambridge  ;  the  whole  community  be- 
came interested,  and  took  part  with  one  side  or  the 
other  of  the  disputants.  The  Orthodox  withdrew 
from  ministerial  intercourse  with  those  who  approved 
the  theological  doctrines  of  that  discourse,  and  thus 


THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  21 

the  Unitarians,  as  they  were  called,  were  forced  to 
assume  the  position  of  a  distinct  religious  denomina- 
tion. From  that  day  to  this,  they  have  acted  as 
such.  They  have  had  their  own  theological  schools, 
their  own  periodicals,  their  own  conventions.  They 
have  been  continually  growing  in  numbers,  strength, 
zeal,  and  enterprise. 

This  separation,  by  the  Unitarians  unsought  and 
unpremeditated,  has  led  to  some  most  important  re- 
sults ;  one  of  which  has  been  the  development  of 
an  original,  independent,  theological  literature,  drawn 
from  individual  study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  and 
all  the  phenomena  of  humanity  and  religious  experi- 
ence, wholly  unbiased  by  previously  existing  creeds 
and  systems  of  divinity.  The  list  of  Unitarian 
books  produced  within  thirty  years  would  furnish  a 
large  theological  library,  —  as  large  as  a  person  of  or- 
dinary leisure  would  read  in  a  lifetime.  These  works 
are  not  doctrinal  alone.  Many  of  them  are  practi- 
cal and  devotional,  and  minister  not  only  light  to  the 
understanding,  but  warmth  to  the  heart.  Inculcating 
a  faith  which  is  consistent  with  reason,  instead  of 
contradictory  to  it,  they  make  religion  a  subject  of 
interest  to  all.  Starting  from  the  point,  that  the  ob- 
ject of  Christianity  is  to  change,  modify,  or  develop 
the  human  character,  not  to  alter  the  human  constitu- 
tion, they  propose  an  object  which  is  within  the 
scope  of  human  endeavours,  and  not  placed  without 
the  compass  of  human  capacities. 


22  THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

If  Unitarianism  as  a  denomination  had  done  noth- 
ing else  than  produce  this  powerful  and  diversified 
theological  literature,  it  would  have  abundantly  justi- 
fied its  existence  to  the  world.  It  is  books  which 
form  the  opinions,  and  the  churches  of  coming  ages. 
The  dogmas  of  this  age  are  the  fruits  of  the  thinking, 
the  writing,  the  books,  of  the  ages  that  are  gone,  and 
the  only  possible  way  in  which  the  future  ages  can 
be  made  to  differ  from  the  past  is  by  substituting 
other  books  to  be  the  manuals  of  their  education  and 
the  guides  of  their  inquiries. 

During  the  thirty  years  of  our  denominational  ex- 
istence, great  changes  have  been  passing  over  the 
whole  religious  world.  Even  Catholicism,  which  is 
the  type  and  representative  of  conservatism,  has  been 
moved  to  its  centre.  Every  denomination  through- 
out Christendom  has  been  divided  into  two  par- 
ties, one  advocating  progress,  the  other  rest.  Most 
especially  is  this  the  case  in  this  country,  where  the 
press  is  free  and  prolific  beyond  all  former  example. 
Not  only  have  parties  been  formed,  but  communions 
have  been  divided,  immense  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tions have  been  sundered,  and  the  points  of  difference 
have  often  been  the  same  which  have  made  us  a  dis- 
tinct denomination. 

It  would  be  arrogance  in  us  to  attribute  to  our  the- 
ological labors  any  considerable  part  of  this  great 
change.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  have  the  confidence 
that   we   have   contributed    something    towards    it. 


THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIAN  ISM   DEFINED.  23 

That  those  great  and  extensive  movements  are  in  the 
same  direction  with  our  own  is  at  least  demonstra- 
tion that  our  movement  is  in  coincidence  with  the 
tendencies  of  the  age. 

There  are  hundreds  and  thousands  in  all  commun- 
ions who  sympathize  with  us,  who  conscientiously  be- 
lieve that  we  have  arrived  nearer  than  any  other  sect 
at  the  truth  of  the  Gospel. 

I  have  been  often  led  to  doubt  whether  there  are, 
at  the  present  day,  any  real  Trinitarians.  The  test 
of  this  is  their  own  private  devotions.  Christians  in 
public  will  fall  in  without  question  with  established 
forms,  and  apparently  acquiesce  in  phraseology  with 
which  they  are  by  no  means  satisfied.  But  in  private 
their  real  belief  comes  out.  I  question  whether  one 
person  in  a  thousand  of  nominal  Trinitarians  ever 
prays  in  private  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  who 
does  not  pray  to  the  Holy  Ghost  is  practically  not  a 
Trinitarian.  The  Lord's  prayer,  the  model  of  all 
devotion,  passes  over  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
the  profoundest  silence. 

There  are  clergymen  not  a  few,  who  have  inves- 
tigated for  themselves  till  they  have  found  that  their 
own  views,  when  defined  to  their  own  minds,  are 
nearer  to  the  personal  unity  of  God  than  to  the  old 
Trinitarian  system.  But  in  their  present  position, 
the  less  inquiry  the  more  peace,  because  their  own 
minds  are  not  free.  The  conclusions  of  their  inqui- 
ries are  forestalled  by  their  previous   ecclesiastical 


24  THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

connections  and  engagements.  They  have  sub- 
scribed a  creed,  or  they  belong  to  an  organization 
which  requires  and  enforces  one,  and  therefore  their 
lips  are  sealed. 

And  here  I  should  fail  to  do  justice  to  the  wisdom, 
courage,  and  fidelity  of  the  founders  of  this  church, 
if  I  omitted  to  mention  a  vital  principle  which  they 
incorporated  into  the  constitution  of  their  religious 
association,  and  made  prominent  in  its  very  name, 
that  of  congregational  independence.  They  had 
clearly  seen  that  this  principle  is  an  indispensable 
condition  to  the  enjoyment  of  that  religious  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  Subscription 
to  a  creed,  the  association  of  churches  together  on 
the  basis  of  a  creed,  enforced  upon  all  their  members 
on  pain  of  excommunication  or  disparagement  of  any 
kind,  involves  a  surrender  of  all  those  principles  on 
which  the  Protestants  separated  from  the  Catholics, 
and  upon  which  they  have  maintained  a  theological 
controversy  for  three  hundred  years.  If,  with  the 
Bible  in  my  hands,  and  all  the  means  of  an  independ- 
ent examination  now  extant  at  my  command,  I  al- 
low another  man  to  write  my  creed,  and  swear  to 
teach  his  interpretation,  however  different  it  may  be 
from  that  which  my  own  investigation  convinces  me 
is  the  true  one,  I  am  false  to  my  allegiance  to  the 
truth,  an  allegiance  which  I  never  can  abjure.  It  is 
the  same  to  me,  as  far  as  principle  is  concerned, 
whether  I  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession,  or  the 
creed  of  the  Council  of  Nice. 


THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  25 

Had  the  creed-making  power  been  permitted  to 
rule  unbroken,  Protestantism  never  could  have  had 
an  existence.  Luther  would  have  perished  in  his 
first  protest.  So,  in  this  country,  if  the  creed-making 
power  had  had  its  own  way,  Unitarianism  could  nev- 
er have  come  into  being.  Had  church  and  state 
been  united,  or  had  the  Episcopal  Church  possessed 
a  stringent  organization,  the  founder  of  this  church 
would  not  have  been  permitted  to  revise  the  Prayer 
Book  according  to  the  word  of  God. 

And  now  and  here,  among  most  Protestant  sects, 
there  are  nearly  the  same  impediments  to  the  investi- 
gation of  truth,  that  there  were  in  the  Papal  Church 
at  the  Reformation.  The  candid  inquirer,  the  hon- 
est preacher,  who  happens  to  travel  out  of  the  cir- 
cumference of  a  human  formulary  of  faith,  is  im- 
mediately assailed,  and  compelled  to  pass  through 
the  same  fiery  ordeal  which  was  endured  by  the  first 
martyrs,  with  the  exception  that  ecclesiastical  laws 
do  not  now  touch  the  life. 

This  beautiful  temple,  then,  stands  dedicated,  not 
alone  to  the  inculcation  of  religious  truth,  but  to  the 
establishment  and  maintenance  of  religious  liberty, 
by  which  alone  religious  truth  can  be  discovered  and 
secured.  That  freedom  is  found  alone  in  Congrega- 
tional Independency,  in  which  every  man,  clergyman, 
and  layman  has  guaranteed  to  him,  as  his  natural 
and  indefeasible  right,  the  liberty  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures  by  the  light  which  God  has  given  him. 


26  THE    POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

Its  vast  expense,  its  exquisite  symmetry,  were 
originally  an  emphatic  testimony  to  the  world  of  the 
priceless  estimate  which  its  founders  placed  upon 
what  seemed  to  them  a  sound  and  a  true  theology. 
In  the  same  spirit  it  is,  that  their  successors  have 
restored  the  waste  of  years,  and  set  it  in  order  afresh 
for  the  worship  of  God.  By  it  they  declare  the 
deep  conviction  of  their  hearts,  that  a  sound  theology 
is  the  first  of  human  wants.  They  see  and  feel,  that 
men  must  and  will  have  a  religion.  The  Sabbath  is 
set  apart  mainly  to  religious  instruction.  The  mass 
of  the  people  will  be  taught  something.  What  shall 
it  be  ?  Shall  it  be  a  system  of  doctrines  at  war  with 
reason,  Scripture,  and  moral  feeling  ?  Or  shall  it  be 
a  system  of  doctrines  consistent  with  them  all  ? 

To  them  it  seems  a  sore  evil,  that  the  precious 
time  devoted  to  sacred  instruction  should  be  worse 
than  wasted  in  discussions  of  metaphysical  divinity, 
wholly  aside  from  the  word  of  God,  and  the  com- 
mon and  practical  duties  of  every-day  life.  It  seems 
to  them  a  great  public  injury,  that  the  mass  of  the 
people  should  be  taught  that  the  corruption  which 
prevails  among  them  is  constitutional  and  inevitable, 
instead  of  being  their  own  work  in  the  abuse  of  the 
nature  and  faculties  that  God  has  given  them.  They 
see  no  hope  for  the  moral  regeneration  of  the  world, 
so  long  as  men  are  taught,  that,  in  the  condition  in 
which  God  creates  them,  sin  is  their  appropriate, 
their  necessary,  their  only  possible  work  ;  that  not 


THE   POSITION    OF   UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  27 

more  than  one  person  in  a  hundred  has  within  him 
the  elements  which  are  necessary  to  moral  probation. 
It  seems  to  them,  that  by  these  dogmas  all  motive 
to  the  religious  education  of  children  is  paralyzed. 
There  is  nothing  religious  in  children  to  educate. 
They  can  do  nothing,  in  consequence  of  their  educa- 
tion, until  Omnipotence  sees  fit  to  create  them  anew. 
Probation,  in  any  equitable  sense  of  the  term,  does 
not  commence  with  rational  existence,  but  in  those 
who  are  elected,  at  that  point  of  time  when  the  con- 
stitutional deficiency  of  their  nature  is  supplied  by 
grace,  and  in  the  non-elect  it  never  commences  at 
all.  Then  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  a  cardinal 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  as  long  as  it  is  rep- 
resented as  an  agency  to  reconcile  God  to  man,  in- 
stead of  man  to  God,  must,  as  far  as  it  has  any  in- 
fluence, nullify  the  moral  efficiency  of  the  practical 
doctrines  of  Christ.  A  theology  which  misrepre- 
sents God  and  man,  and  the  relations  which  subsist 
between  them,  must  be  essentially  wrong. 

Yet,  with  these  convictions,  we  are  no  sectarians. 
We  do  not  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  a  proselyte. 
We  have  no  ambition  to  propagate  a  name,  or  to 
marshal  hosts  of  mere  partisans.  Our  only  desire, 
before  God,  is  to  propagate  the  simple  truth.  We 
aspire  to  no  other  name  than  that  of  Christian.  We 
consider  it  the  hardest  part  of  our  lot,  and  the  sad- 
dest fact  in  the  condition  of  the  world,  that  in  the 
Christian  Church  we  should  derive  a  sectarian  name 


28  THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED. 

from  maintaining  the  fundamental  truth  both  of  Ju- 
daism and  Christianity,  the  numerical  and  personal 
unity  of  God,  —  "  Jehovah  our  God,  Jehovah  is 
one." 

So  thoroughly  convinced  are  we  of  the  truth  of 
our  principles,  so  deeply  persuaded  are  we  that  they 
are  the  simple  teachings  of  God's  word,  and  that  the 
time  must  come  when  they  will  be  acknowledged  by 
all  candid  inquirers,  that  it  does  not  move  us  that 
the  world  goeth  not  out  after  us,  that  our  census  is  no 
greater  among  Christian  denominations.  Nothing 
true  and  good  has  ever  met  from  the  world  a  tumul- 
tuous reception.  Christianity  itself  began  in  an  up- 
per chamber,  and  the  first  church  numbered  but 
twelve.  Our  first  object  is  theological  reform ;  the 
world,  we  believe,  is  ripe  for  it.  We  are  striving 
for  the  reunion  of  reason  and  faith,  —  two  princi- 
ples which  God  hath  joined  together,  but  which  man 
hath  long  ago  divorced.  Our  purpose  is  to  remove 
the  obstacles  which  now  shut  out  the  Bible  from  the 
understanding,  the  conscience,  and  the  heart  of  man- 
kind. To  effect  these  objects,  numbers  are  not  ne- 
cessary. Truth  is  not  propagated  by  armies,  though 
error  often  is.  Truth  conquers  by  her  own  might. 
Our  mission,  at  the  present  moment,  requires,  not 
numbers,  but  wisdom,  learning,  piety,  patience,  in- 
dustry. These  things  we  covet,  these  things  we 
cultivate  and  strive  to  attain.  We  see  no  reason 
for  discouragement.     Everywhere  we  see  progress, 


THE    POSITION    OF    UNITARIANISM    DEFINED.  29 

everywhere  fresh  acknowledgment  of  the  principles 
we  hold  dear,  and  a  century  of  advancement  such  as 
the  last  thirty  years  have  witnessed  will  bring  most 
religious  sects  in  this  country  to  the  ground  we 
occupy. 


DISCOURSE    II. 


UNITARIANS    NOT   INFIDELS. 

But  we  desire  to  hear  of  thee  what  thou  thinkest  ; 
for  as  concerning  this  sect,  we  know  that  everywhere 
it  is  spoken  against.  —  Acts  xxviii.  22. 

The  most  common  accusation  made  against  Uni- 
tarians is,  that  they  are  unbelievers.  This  is  no  new- 
charge,  as  brought  by  one  Christian  denomination 
against  another.  It  is  often,  and  very  easily,  said,  by 
one  controversialist  against  another,  that  he  is  an  in- 
fidel, or  an  unbeliever.  And  the  charge  generally 
amounts  to  this,  that  one  denies  what  the  other 
believes.  Each  insists  on  the  particular  doctrine 
which  he  makes  prominent,  as  the  great,  central  truth 
of  the  Gospel,  and  says,  and  perhaps  thinks,  that  his 
opponent,  if  he  denies  that,  might  as  well  deny  the 
whole  Gospel. 

This  is  precisely  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 
It  is  said  of  us,  that  we  do  not  believe  in  Christ. 
This  is  an  equivocal  expression.  It  may  mean,  that 
we  do  not  believe  that  any  such  person  ever  lived. 
It  may  mean,  that  we  put  no  confidence  in  what  he 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  31 

said,  — that  he  was  not  what  he  pretended  to  be,  or 
what  his  disciples  afterwards  pretended  he  had  been. 
It  may  mean,  and  does  probably  mean,  in  the  case 
we  are  considering,  that  we  do  not  believe  that  he 
was  God. 

The  phraseology  is  sometimes  varied,  and  it  is 
said  that  we  do  not  believe  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 
This,  again,  is  an  equivocal  expression.  It  may 
mean,  that  his  person  was  divine,  or  that  his  words 
and  actions  were  divine.  It  may  mean  that  he  was 
Jehovah,  the  only  living  and  true  God.  In  that  case 
the  proper  expression  would  be,  that  we  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  Deity  of  Christ. 

If  Christ  was  not  God,  then  we  may  believe  in 
him,  and  believe  in  him  to  the  saving  of  the  soul,  and 
still  not  believe  that  he  was  God.  The  whole  ques- 
tion as  to  what  is  a  true  faith  in  Christ  turns  upon 
the  question  whether  he  were  God  or  not. 

In  order  to  settle  this  question,  we  must  go  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  inquire  what  the  Apostles  believed 
concerning  him.  The  first  convert  to  belief  in  Christ 
was  Peter.  And  what  was  his  confession  of  faith  ? 
According  to  Matthew,  it  was,  — "  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  And  what 
did  Peter  mean  by  this  ?  Did  he  mean  to  make  any 
assertion  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ,  or  merely 
his  office  ?  The  very  phrase  does  not  assert,  but 
denies,  Deity.  A  Son  of  God  cannot  be  God,  for 
three  reasons,  —  because  he  is  derived,  because  he 


6"Z  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

cannot  be  eternal,  and  because  he  must  be  separate 
from  God.  But  so  far  is  the  second  clause,  u  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,"  from  making  an  important 
part  of  Peter's  confession  of  faith,  that  the  other  two 
Evangelists  who  have  related  this  confession,  Mark 
and  Luke,  have  left  it  out  altogether.  Mark  records 
that  he  merely  said,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ " ;  and 
Luke,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  of  God."  The  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "Christ"  is  "  anointed."  The 
anointed  of  God  cannot  be  God.  If  the  second 
clause,  "  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  had  contained 
the  essence  or  the  most  important  part  of  Peter's 
confession,  as  relating  to  the  nature  of  Christ,  Mark 
and  Luke  certainly  would  not  have  left  it  out.  We 
may  safely  say,  then,  that  the  confession  of  Peter 
had  no  relation  to  the  nature  of  Christ  whatever,  but 
only  to  his  office. 

But  Peter  must  be  allowed  to  be  the  best  inter- 
preter of  his  own  language.  Peter,  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  was  sent,  by  especial  commission, 
to  convert  Cornelius,  and  teach  him  the  first  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  religion  ;  and  the  faith  which  he 
propounds  to  Cornelius  concerning  Christ  is  this  :  — 
"  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  ;  who  went  about  doing 
good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the 
devil :  for  God  was  with  him.  And  we  are  witnesses 
of  all  things  which  he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews 
and  in  Jerusalem  ;  whom  they  slew,  and  hanged  on  a 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  36 

tree  :  him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed 
him  openly."  The  anointing  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  did  not  prove 
him  to  be  God.  It  rather  proved  him  not  to  be 
God.  Had  he  been  God,  he  would  not  have  needed, 
nor  could  he  have  received,  such  an  anointing.  Nei- 
ther do  crucifixion  and  being  raised  from  the  dead 
agree  with  the  supposition  that  Christ  was  God. 

Now  this  is  precisely  the  Unitarian  belief  concern- 
ing Jesus  of  Nazareth,  — that  God  anointed  him  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  endowed  him  with 
that  transcendent  and  unapproachable  wisdom  which 
he  exhibited,  gave  him  the  supernatural  knowledge  that 
he  possessed,  communicated  to  him  the  sublime  and 
perfect  doctrine  that  he  taught,  sealed  his  mission  by 
the  miracles  which  he  performed,  and,  when  the  Jews 
and  Romans  had  murdered  him  upon  the  cross,  raised 
him  from  the  dead  and  showed  him  to  his  disciples, 
that  they  might  be  the  witnesses  of  these  stupendous 
events,  on  which  our  religion  is  founded,  to  that  and 
all  succeeding  ages. 

With  what  propriety,  then,  can  Unitarians  be  de- 
nounced as  unbelievers  in  Christ,  when  they  believe 
concerning  him  the  very  thing  which  Peter  did,  who 
was  blessed  by  his  Master,  and  called  the  foundation- 
stone  of  the  Christian  Church  ?  Belief  in  Christ  has 
nothing  to  do  with  his  nature,  but  only  with  his  mis- 
sion, —  whether  God  did  or  did  not  anoint  him  with 
3 


34  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  did  or  did  not  raise 
him  from  the  dead. 

Paul  takes  the  same  view  of  this  subject  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  :  —  "If  Christ 
be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your 
faith  is  also  vain.  Yea,  and  we  are  found  false  wit- 
nesses of  God,  because  we  have  testified  of  God 
that  he  raised  up  Christ ;  whom  he  raised  not  up,  if 
so  be  that  the  dead  rise  not."  Here,  then,  the  main 
point  of  Christian  faith  is,  not  that  Christ  was  God, 
but  that  God  had  raised  him  from  the  dead.  To 
believe  that  Christ  was  God,  and  that  God  raised  him 
from  the  dead,  is  to  believe  totally  different  proposi- 
tions. 

And  why  was  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
so  important  ?  Paul  tells  us,  in  the  first  chapter  of 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  :  —  "  Declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,"  or  the  Messiah,  "  with  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  The  resurrection  proved  nothing  as  to 
the  nature  of  Christ.  It  did  demonstrate  him  to  be 
the  Messiah. 

It  is  objected  to  Unitarians,  that  they  rely  too 
much  on  human  reason  ;  that  they  set  up  reason  in 
opposition  to  Scripture,  and  in  opposition  to  faith. 
Let  us  examine  this  matter,  and  see  if  this  charge  be 
just.  What  is  the  relation  of  reason  to  Scripture 
and  to  faith  ? 

We  affirm  that  the  use  of  reason  is  necessary  to 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  35 

determine  whether  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  received 
as  a  divine  revelation  ;  and,  when  they  are  so  received, 
the  use  of  reason  is  necessary  to  find  out  what  they 
teach  ;  and,  in  the  third  place,  faith,  instead  of  being 
opposed  to  reason,  is  built  upon  it. 

In  the  first  place,  reason  is  the  only  means  which 
God  has  given  us  of  distinguishing  what  is  true  from 
what  is  false,  what  is  probable  from  what  is  improba- 
ble, what  is  to  be  believed  from  what  is  not  to  be  be- 
lieved. The  New  Testament  is  given  us,  and  we 
read  it.  There  is  no  way  for  us  to  determine  wheth- 
er it  is  true  or  false,  except  by  the  use  of  our  reason. 
If  we  must  receive  the  New  Testament  merely  be- 
cause it  is  placed  before  us,  then  the  Mahometan  is 
just  as  much  compelled  to  receive  the  Koran  because 
it  is  placed  before  him. 

A  man  says  that  he  receives  the  New  Testament 
as  a  Divine  revelation.  Another  asks  him,  Why  ? 
He  then  goes  on  to  give  his  reasons.  He  says  that 
the  narrative  is  natural,  and  bears  the  marks  of  truth. 
That  is,  it  resembles  other  narratives  which  he  knows 
to  be  true.  The  comparison  of  that  narrative  with 
other  narratives  is  the  work  of  reason,  and  the  infer- 
ence he  draws  from  it  is  the  work  of  reason.  He 
says  that  Paul  and  Peter  and  John  and  the  other 
Apostles  would  not  have  consumed  their  lives,  and 
finally  sacrificed  them,  in  testifying  to  a  falsehood. 
This  inference  is  an  act  of  reason.  Faith  in  the 
New  Testament,  then,  is  built  on  reason.  And  if  it 
were  not,  it  would  be  mere  credulity. 


36  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

In  the  second  place,  we  must  use  reason  in  find- 
ing out  what  the  Bible  teaches.  All  sects  do  this, 
even  those  who  disclaim  reason  most  vehemently. 
All  sects  use  it,  till  it  begins  to  press  upon  their  pe- 
culiar doctrines,  and  then  they  discard  it.  The 
Catholic  uses  it.  He  reads  in  the  New  Testament 
the  passage  in  which  Christ  calls  himself  a  "  vine." 
Is  he  to  receive  this  literally  or  figuratively  ?  If  he 
is  not  allowed  to  use  reason,  he  must  believe  that 
Christ  was  literally  a  vine,  that  he  was  planted  in  the 
earth,  and  had  roots  and  branches  ;  and  the  only 
reason  he  can  give  why  he  does  not  so  receive  it  is, 
that  it  is  not  reasonable  to  believe  that  this  was 
Christ's  meaning.  Upon  the  strength  of  reason,  he 
rejects  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words.  But  when 
he  comes  to  the  passage,  "  This  is  my  body,"  he 
refuses  to  use  his  reason,  and  says  that  this  assertion 
must  be  interpreted  literally,  and  he  must  believe  that 
it  was  the  real  flesh  of  Christ.  The  Trinitarian 
Protestant  insists  on  using  his  reason  in  the  same 
way,  in  this  case,  that  the  Catholic  did  in  regard  to 
the  assertion  of  Christ  that  he  was  a  vine.  He 
judges  that  it  is  more  reasonable  to  believe  that 
Christ  meant  to  say  that  the  bread  represented  his 
body,  as  his  body  was  present,  unbroken  and  un- 
changed. 

But  there  is  a  limit  to  his  application  of  reason  to 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  to  that  of 
the  Catholic.     Christ  said,  on  a  certain  occasion,  — 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  61 

"I  and  the  Father  are  one."  He  insists  that  this 
passage  must  be  interpreted  literally,  that  God 
and  Christ  are  one  being.  You  ask  him  how  two 
beings  can  be  one  being,  and  he  answers,  that  he 
does  not  pretend  to  explain  it.  It  is  a  mystery,  and 
must  be  received,  notwithstanding  its  repugnance  to 
reason.  But  he  would  not  allow  the  Catholic  to 
make  the  same  plea  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation. 

The  Unitarian  goes  on  to  apply  reason  to  the 
interpretation  of  this  passage  also.  He  inquires  if 
the  same  writer  do  not  employ  the  same  word  in 
cases  in  which  no  identity  of  being  is  intended.  He 
reads  on  a  few  chapters,  and  he  finds  the  Saviour 
praying  for  his  disciples  in  these  words,  —  "  that 
they  all  may  be  one."  And  in  the  next  verse  he 
specifies  the  sense  in  which  they  were  to  be  one  to 
be  the  same  with  that  in  which  he  had  applied  the 
same  expression  to  himself  and  God,  —  "  that  they 
may  be  one,  even  as  we  are."  If  the  expression  be 
allowed  to  prove  that  God  and  Christ  were  numer- 
ically one,  then  the  same  expression  must  be  allowed 
to  prove  that  God  and  Christ  and  the  disciples  were 
all  one  being. 

The  only  difference,  then,  that  there  is  between 
the  Unitarian  and  other  Christians  is,  that  he  applies 
reason  to  the  interpretation  of  all  the  Scriptures, 
whereas  they  apply  it  only  to  a  part.  Without  the 
use  of  reason,  revelation  would  be  useless  ;  for  we 


38  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

could  never  know  what  was  revealed  and  what  was 
not  revealed,  what  was  figurative  and  what  literal. 
If  it  be  meant  by  placing  reason  above  Scripture, 
that,  when  reason  and  Scripture  come  in  conflict,  we 
believe  reason  in  preference  to  Scripture,  we  deny- 
that  any  such  case  ever  happened,  or  ever  can  hap- 
pen ;  for  we  affirm  that  the  Scriptures  teach  nothing 
that  is  not  perfectly  reasonable,  when  they  are  prop- 
erly interpreted. 

Revelation  teaches  more,  and  on  higher  evidence, 
than  reason.  If  it  did  not,  it  would  be  wholly  use- 
less and  superfluous.  If  it  added  nothing  to  what  we 
knew  before,  it  could  do  us  no  good.  Reason  teaches 
the  probability  of  a  future  life  ;  but  the  assurance  of 
Christ,  and  his  own  resurrection,  make  it  certain. 
But  it  is  only  by  the  use  of  reason  that  we  can  arrive 
at  the  well-grounded  conviction,  that  Christ  ever  ut- 
tered such  an  assurance,  or  ever  rose  from  the  dead. 
It  is  only  by  the  use  of  reason  that  the  accounts  of 
the  supernatural  events  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment can  be  separated  and  distinguished  from  the 
thousand  other  accounts  of  supernatural  events  which 
have  been  handed  down  to  us  from  the  past.  Ac- 
cordingly, every  book  that  has  ever  been  written 
on  the  evidences  of  Christianity  is  a  recital  of  the 
reasons  we  have  for  believing  the  supernatural  ac- 
counts of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  reject- 
ing all  others.  These  books  are  addressed  to  the 
reasoning  faculty  of  man.  If  the  reasoning  is  not 
satisfactory,  the  revelation  has  no  authority. 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  «*y 

I  go  further,  and  say  that  it  is  reason  only  which 
can  give  us  confidence  in  a  revelation,  even  when  we 
are  convinced  that  one  has  been  made.  The  truth 
of  revelation,  even  when  it  is  made,  depends  upon 
the  veracity  of  God,  upon  the  question  whether  it  is 
probable  that  he  would  or  would  not  deceive  us. 
The  probability  that  he  would  not  deceive  us  depends 
entirely  upon  the  fact,  whether  he  be  a  good  being. 
And  the  only  evidence  we  have  that  he  is  a  good 
being  is  the  predominance  of  good  over  evil  in  his 
works,  or  of  happiness  over  misery  in  the  creatures  he 
has  made.  The  representation  is  not  true,  then,  that 
Unitarians  set  up  reason  in  opposition  to  Scripture, 
and  in  opposition  to  faith.  They  make  use  of  rea- 
son for  the  establishment  of  Scripture,  and  for  the 
establishment  of  faith.  They  make  use  of  reason 
for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  that  they  may  as- 
certain what  it  teaches  and  what  it  does  not  teach. 

It  is  objected  to  Unitarians,  that  they  expect  to 
be  saved  by  their  own  merits,  whereas  the  only 
ground  of  salvation  is  the  merits  of  Christ.  Both 
parts  of  this  objection  are  founded  on  misappre- 
hension. There  is  no  such  thing  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures  as  being  saved  by  the  merits  of  Christ. 
There  is  no  such  phrase  in  the  Scriptures  as  "  the 
merits  of  Christ."  There  is  no  intimation  that  the 
merits  of  Christ,  whatever  they  might  have  been, 
can  by  any  possibility  become  the  merits  of  any  oth- 
er person.     Merit  is  a  thing  which  can  no  more  be 


40  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

transferred  than  personal  identity.  If  merit  could  be 
transferred  from  one  person  to  another,  then  this 
world,  as  a  scene  of  probation,  might  be  dispensed 
with.  Salvation  must  either  be  arbitrary  or  universal. 
All  that  would  be  necessary  to  be  done  for  the  worst 
of  men,  when  he  leaves  the  world,  would  be  for  the 
merits  of  Christ  to  be  set  to  his  account,  and  then  his 
condition  would  be  as  good  as  that  of  the  best.  Christ 
never  made  mention  of  any  such  plan  of  salvation  as 
this.  He  made  no  promise  of  the  transfer  of  his 
personal  merits  to  his  followers.  There  is  no  way 
in  which  a  bad  man  can  become  a  good  man,  except 
by  his  personal  acts.  A  bad  man  cannot  become  a 
good  man  without  repentance,  which  is  a  personal 
act.  A  bad  man  cannot  become  a  good  man  with- 
out reformation,  that  is,  without  obedience.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  first  word  which  Christ  uttered  was, 
"  Repent."  In  the  first  sermon  he  delivered,  he 
pronounced  blessings  on  the  humble,  the  meek,  the 
pure  in  heart,  the  merciful,  the  peacemakers,  the 
persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  and  assured 
them  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  theirs,  —  that 
they  would  be  for  ever  happy.  These  things  were 
not  the  merits  of  Christ.  They  were  all  personal 
qualities,  which  fitted  them  for  the  happiness  of 
heaven.  He  did  not  come  to  substitute  reliance  on 
his  merits,  in  the  place  of  obedience  to  God's  law, 
for  final  acceptance.  "  Think  not,"  said  he,  in  the 
same  discourse,  M  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  41 

or  the  prophets  :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and 
earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever,  there- 
fore, shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  but  whosoever  shall  do 
and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Does  this  look  like  being 
saved  by  the  merits  of  Christ  ? 

The  next  verse  informs  us  of  the  nature  and  de- 
gree of  that  righteousness  which  was  to  fit  Christ's 
disciples  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  First  he  tells 
them  of  the  kind  and  degree  of  righteousness  which 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  thought  necessary,  and 
then  informs  them  what  he  requires  :  —  "  I  say  unto 
you,  that  except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall 
in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  What 
was  their  righteousness  ?  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it 
was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill  ; 
and  whosoever  shall  kill  shall  be  in  danger  of  the 
judgment.  But  I  say  unto  you,  that  whosoever  is 
angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in 
danger  of  the  judgment."  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it 
hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour,  and 
hate  thine  enemy.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your 
enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them 
that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully 


42  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

use  you  and  persecute  you  ;  that  ye  may  be  the  chil- 
dren of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Luke  re- 
ports that  he  added,  —  u  And  your  reward  shall  be 
great."  Your  reward  for  what  ?  Certainly  not  for 
the  merits  of  Christ,  but  the  cultivation  and  practice 
of  the  Christian  virtues  just  enumerated,  kindness, 
forbearance,  justice.  He  winds  up  this  enumeration 
of  Christian  virtues  by  saying,  —  "  Be  ye  there- 
fore perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
is  perfect."  Now  it  cannot  be  said  that  God  is  per- 
fect by  any  other  righteousness  except  his  own,  and 
if  man  is  perfect  by  Christ's  merits,  then  his  perfec- 
tion is  not  of  the  same  kind  with  that  of  God.  The 
perfection  of  God  had  just  been  specified  :  —  "  For 
he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the 
good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust." 
After  proposing  as  the  laws  of  his  kingdom  the 
whole  circle  of  the  most  exalted  virtues,  Christ  clos- 
es with  the  following  declarations  :  —  ' c  Not  every 
one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  "  Therefore, 
whosoever  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth 
them,  I  will  liken  him  unto  a  wise  man,  which  built 
his  house  upon  a  rock  ;  and  the  rain  descended,  and 
the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon 
that  house,  and  it  fell  not  :  for  it  was  founded  on  a 
rock.  And  every  one  that  heareth  these  sayings 
of  mine,  and  doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  4«5 

foolish  man,  which  built  his '  house  upon  the  sand  ; 
and  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and  the 
winds  blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house,  and  it  fell  : 
and  great  was  the  fall  of  it."  Nothing  is  here  said  of 
the  merits  of  Christ  as  a  ground  of  salvation.  The 
reason  of  acceptance  is,  not  the  appropriating  of  his 
merits,  but  doing  his  commandments.  In  another 
place  he  describes  the  general  judgment,  but  says 
nothing  of  his  merits  as  the  ground  of  discrimination 
between  those  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his  left.  In 
another  place  he  says,  —  "  They  that  have  done 
good  shall  come  forth  unto  the  resurrection  of  life, 
and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection  of 
condemnation." 

Yet,  notwithstanding  these  representations,  no 
Unitarian  believes  nor  preaches  that  any  man  can 
demand  salvation  on  account  of  his  good  works,  be- 
cause his  best  works  are  imperfect,  and  he  often  sins. 
For  acceptance  o£  his  best  deeds,  he  must  rely  on 
the  benignity  of  God,  for  he  has  done  no  more  than 
he  was  bound  to  do.  For  the  forgiveness  of  his 
sins,  he  must  be  dependent  on  God's  mercy.  But 
such  is  God's  goodness,  that  he  has  no  doubt  of  either. 

this  brings  me  to  the  only  remaining  charge 
against  Unitarians  which  I  shall  have  space  to  notice 
this  evening.  It  is  said  of  us,  that  we  deny  the 
Atonement.  This  charge  is  a  difficult  one  to  meet, 
because  of  its  vagueness.  It  is  difficult  to  find  out 
what  the  doctrine  of  atonement  is,  that  we  are  ac- 


44  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

cused  of  denying.  There  have  been  almost  as  many 
different  schemes  of  atonement  as  there  have  been 
different  writers  upon  the  subject.  Princeton  says 
one  thing,  and  Andover  another.  Oberlin  proposes 
another  explanation,  differing  from  both. 

The  first  and  most  common  scheme  of  atonement 
is,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  designed  to  ap- 
pease the  wrath  of  God.  God  was  angry  with  men 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  well  as  their  own 
sins.  God  the  Son,  the  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity, interposed  to  turn  away  his  wrath,  to  receive  in 
his  own  person  the  inflictions  of  God's  vindictive 
displeasure,  and  thus  rescue  man  from  it.  We  do 
reject  this  scheme  of  atonement  most  distinctly  and 
emphatically.  We  say  that  it  has  no  foundation  in* 
Scripture,  and  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature 
and  character  of  God.  It  is,  moreover,  inconsistent 
with  itself.  On  the  supposition  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  were  true,  sin  is  committed  against  God, 
the  whole  Trinity,  —  against  one  person  as  much 
as  another.  The  second  person  cannot  abandon 
his  place  in  the  Trinity,  and  come  on  earth  and 
make  atonement  to  the  whole  Trinity,  because  he 
must  be  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  persons  of  the 
Trinity  to  which  the  atonement  is  made.  The  very 
supposition  upon  which  this  scheme  is  raised  is  an 
impossibility,  and  therefore  requires  no  further  dis- 
cussion. 

The  next  scheme  of  atonement  which  I  shall  men- 


UNITARIANS   NOT    INFIDELS.  45 

tion  may  be  called  "  the  satisfaction  scheme."  It  is 
said,  that  mankind  had  broken  God's  law,  and  thus 
impaired  its  authority.  If  men  were  pardoned  mere- 
ly on  repentance,  without  the  legal  penalty  being  ex- 
acted from  some  one,  the  law  would  become  a  nul- 
lity, and  no  longer  have  power  to  control  God's 
creatures.  It  was  necessary  that  some  one  should 
be  punished,  lest  the  Deity  should  lose  his  dignity 
and  respect.  Every  sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  because 
committed  against  an  infinite  God.  An  infinite 
atonement  is  necessary  to  do  away  an  infinite  evil. 
It  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  be  both  God  and 
man,  in  order  to  make  an  infinite  sacrifice.  But,  un- 
fortunately for  this  theory,  those  who  adopt  it  are 
compelled  to  confess  that  God  is  incapable  of  suffer- 
ing, so  that  the  human  part  alone  suffered,  and  the 
infinite  atonement  is  at  last  explained  away.  Be- 
sides, Christ  upon  the  cross  exclaimed,  "  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? "  and  with 
his  last  breath  said,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit."  If  God  made  a  part  of  his  per- 
son, he  could  not  have  forsaken  him.  And  if  he 
remained  to  make  the  infinite  atonement,  that  prayer 
did  not  correspond  to  facts.  But  this  idea  of  satis- 
fying the  law  is  wholly  gratuitous.  Nothing  is  said 
of  it  in  Scripture. 

What,  then,  is  the  atonement,  and  in  what  sense 
do  Unitarians  believe  in  it  ?  In  the  first  place,  I 
observe  that  the  word  is  found  but  once  in  the  New 


46  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

Testament,  and  then  it  is  the  translation  of  a  Greek 
word,  which  everywhere  else  is  rendered  reconcilia- 
tion. Had  it  been  here  so  translated,  we  should 
never  have  heard  either  of  the  word  or  the  doctrine 
of  atonement. 

The  simple  facts  of  the  case  are  these.  A  dis- 
obedient child  is  always  at  variance  with  his  father. 
There  can  be  no  reconciliation,  or  at-one-ment,  be- 
tween them,  until  the  son  repents,  reforms,  and  re- 
turns humbled  and  obedient  to  his  father.  Such  is 
the  condition  of  those  whom  Christ  endeavoured  to 
reconcile  to  God.  Reconciliation  is  a  voluntary  act, 
and  can  be  brought  about  only  by  persuasion.  Christ 
was  a  teacher.  His  mission  was  that  of  a  teacher. 
His  death  was  the  consequence  of  his  teaching,  and 
of  his  assumption  of  the  office  of  the  Messiah.  The 
faith  which  he  claimed  from  his  disciples  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  his  nature.  It  was,  that  he  had  been 
sent  by  God,  and  instructed  and  empowered  to  do 
what  he  did,  and  teach  what  he  taught.  That  teach- 
ing was  his  principal  office,  he  more  than  once  as- 
serts. "I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  me  should  not  walk  in  dark- 
ness." Belief  on  him  as  a  teacher  was  the  belief 
which  secured  salvation.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  he  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on 
him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not 
come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death 
unto  life."     To  his  disciples  he  said,  before  his  cru- 


UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS.  47 

cifixion,  —  "  Now  ye  are  clean,  through  the  word 
that  I  have  spoken  unto  you."  It  was  his  doctrine, 
then,  not  his  death,  which  cleansed  his  disciples  from 
sin.  Indeed,  Christ's  death  without  his  doctrines 
could  have  no  influence  upon  the  world,  for  men 
cannot  be  forgiven  unless  they  repent.  It  is  only  by 
bringing  men  to  repentance  and  obedience,  that  he 
can  be  of  any  service  to  them.  ,To  reject  him  as  a 
teacher  is  to  reject  him  altogether.  "  He  that  re- 
jecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one 
that  judgeth  him  ;  the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  that 
shall  judge  him  at  the  last  day.  For  I  have  not 
spoken  of  myself,  but  the  Father,  which  hath  sent 
me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment  what  I  should  say 
and  what  I  should  speak,  and  I  know  that  his  com- 
mandment is  life  everlasting." 

One  part  of  Christ's  doctrine  was  the  readiness  of 
God  to  forgive  the  penitent.  Such  is  the  meaning 
of  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son.  The  doctrine  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  made  a  part,  and  a  substantial 
part,  of  Christ's  teaching  ;  it  became  a  part  of  the 
new  covenant  or  dispensation  of  religion,  a  part  of 
God's  revealed  and  stipulated  way  of  dealing  with 
men. 

In  the  course  of  his  teaching,  Jesus  was  arraigned 
by  the  Jews  as  guilty  of  blasphemy,  in  pretending 
to  be  their  promised  Messiah,  and  for  teaching  the 
people  in  the  name  of  God.  They  brought  him  be- 
fore their  highest  court,  and  the  chief  priest  solemnly 


48  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

interrogated  him,  —  "  Art  thou  the  Christ  ?  "  Here 
were  his  whole  mission  and  ministry  brought  to  the 
test.  If  he  had  shrunk  from  that  avowal,  there 
would  have  been  an  end  to  his  mission  and  his 
religion.  The  world  at  large  would  never  have 
known  that  such  a  person  had  lived.  But  he 
said,  u  I  am,"  and  was  ordered  to  execution.  He 
shed  his  blood,  then,  in  bearing  testimony  to  his  Di- 
vine mission  ;  his  blood  was  the  seal  of  the  new  cov- 
enant, a  part  of  which  covenant  was  the  promise  of 
God  to  forgive  the  penitent.  This  is  what  he  meant, 
then,  in  instituting  the  Supper,  when  he  took  the  cup 
and  said,  "  This  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood, 
which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
My  blood  is  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  which  prom- 
ises the  forgiveness  of  sins.  This  is  the  sense  in 
which  Jesus  was  M  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world."  The  mere  pardon  of 
sin  is  of  little  consequence,  unless  at  the  same  time 
there  is  a  change  of  character.  It  would  have  been 
of  no  use  for  the  father  to  forgive  the  prodigal  son, 
unless  he  had  repented.  If  he  had  come  back  im- 
penitent, the  state  of  things  would  not  have  been 
improved  at  all,  though  the  father  had  forgiven  the 
impenitent  son. 

Christ  is  the  ambassador  of  God's  mercy  to  men. 
He  promised  them  pardon  on  repentance,  and  ac- 
ceptance on  the  ground  of  obedience,  — reward,  even, 
for  every  good  act.     But  that  embassage  is  made  in- 


UNITARIANS   NOT    INFIDELS.  4U 

finitely  more  impressive  by  the  crucifixion.  That 
Christ  foresaw  and  foretold  :  —  "  And  I,  if  T  be  lift- 
ed up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me." 

So  we  find  that  it  is  the  moral  effect  of  Christ's 
death  upon  us  on  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament principally  dwell,  when  speaking  of  the  sub- 
ject. "  He  suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,"  — 
that  he  might  appease  the  Divine  wrath,  or  vindicate 
the  honor  of  the  law  ?  —  no  ;  but  "  that  he  might 
bring  us  unto  God."  "  Who  gave  himself  for  us," 
—  that  he  might  expiate  our  sins  ?  —  no  ;  but  "  that 
he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto 
himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works." 
"  Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed 
by  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold,"  —  from 
what  ?  —  the  wrath  of  God,  the  penalties  of  the  law  ? 
— no  ;  but  "  from  your  vain  conversation,  received  by 
tradition  from  your  fathers,"  from  your  vicious  hab- 
its and  practices,  which  were  handed  down  from  pre- 
ceding generations,  "  by  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot."  Now  there  is  no  possible  way  in  which  the 
blood  of  Christ  can  reform  men  from  their  evil  hab- 
its, except  by  giving  moral  power  and  efficacy  to  the 
Gospel,  in  persuading  men  to  abandon  sin  and  prac- 
tise holiness. 

Such,  then,  are  the  views  of  Unitarians  with  re- 
spect to  the  atonement.  They  do  not  believe  that 
Christ  died  to  appease  God's  wrath  ;  they  do  not 
4 


50  UNITARIANS    NOT    INFIDELS. 

believe  that  he  died  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the 
broken  law.  They  do  believe  that  he  died  to  give 
power  and  efficacy  to  his  Gospel,  to  fix  on  him  the 
faith  and  affections  of  mankind,  that  they  might  be 
delivered  from  sin,  and  be  induced  to  become  holy, 
just,  and  good  ;  to  break  off  their  sins  by  righteous- 
ness, and  their  iniquities  by  turning  to  God,  and  thus 
become  reconciled  to  that  Father  from  whom  they 
were  alienated  by  wicked  works. 

The  Unitarian  hopes  to  be  saved,  not  by  his  own 
merits,  nor  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  but  by  the  free, 
unbought,  spontaneous  mercy  of  God,  of  which 
boundless  and  unchangeable  love  the  mission  and 
death  of  Christ  are  an  expression  and  a  manifesta- 
tion. "  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 

The  atonement,  or  reconciliation,  is  not  so  much 
a  speculative  as  a  practical  subject,  in  which  every 
one  is  interested  who  hears  me  this  night.  Each  one 
of  you  knows  whether  he  is  reconciled  to  God  or 
not,  or  whether  he  is  estranged  from  him.  Christ 
has  told  you  how  you  can  find  peace  :  —  "  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy-laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and 
learn  of  me ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart ;  and 
ye  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls." 


DISCOURSE    III 


EXPLAINING    THE    BIBLE    AND    EXPLAINING  IT 
AWAY 

Sanctify  them  through   thy  truth:  thy  word   is  truth. 
—  John  xvii.  17. 

The  charges  against  Unitarians  which  I  am  this 
evening  to  meet  and  answer  are,  that  they  mutilate 
the  Scriptures  in  some  instances,  and  explain  them 
away  in  others,  in  order  to  sustain  their  peculiar  doc- 
trines. Sometimes  it  is  said,  that  we  do  not  use  the 
same  Bible  which  is  used  by  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world.  The  impression  intended  to  be  conveyed  by 
all  these  representations  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are  so 
plainly  against  us  that  they  must  be  disposed  of  in 
some  unfair  way  before  our  doctrines  can  be  estab- 
lished, and  where  a  text  makes  against  us,  we  either 
deny  its  genuineness,  or  put  some  forced  and  unnat- 
ural construction  upon  it,  to  make  it  square  with  our 
faith.  It  is  the  object  of  this  discourse  to  examine 
and  confute  these  charges,  to  show  that  we  are  more 
zealous  than  any  other  sect  for  the  purity  of  God's 
word,  that  where  the  accusation  can  be  made  against 


52  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

us  of  straining  the  words  of  Scripture  from  their  ob- 
vious meaning,  the  same  charge  may  be  made  a  hun- 
dred times  as  often  against  those  who  accuse  us  ;  that 
we  are  never  compelled  by  our  system  to  explain 
away  the  Scriptures,  but  only  to  explain  them  ;  where- 
as there  is  hardly  a  page  in  the  Bible  which  Trinita- 
rians are  not  compelled  to  explain  away. 

We  begin  with  the  integrity  of  the  text.  It  is  not 
pretended  by  the  advocates  of  the  Trinity  that  there 
is  one  single  text  in  the  Bible  in  which  it  is  plainly 
taught.  There  is  no  such  word  as  Trinity  in  the 
Bible,  from  beginning  to  end.  Such  a  \vord  was 
never  coined  till  many  ages  after  the  Bible  was  writ- 
ten. Both  the  great  Reformers,  Luther  and  Calvin, 
were  dissatisfied  with  it  and  disapproved  of  its  use. 
Luther  says,  —  "  The  word  Trinity  sounds  oddly, 
and  is  a  human  invention  ;  it  were  better  to  call  the 
Almighty,  God,  than  Trinity."  Calvin  says  he  has 
no  objection  to  its  being  disused,  or  "  buried,"  and, 
in  another  place,  —  "  I  like  not  this  prayer,  O  holy, 
blessed,  and  glorious  Trinity  !  it  savors  of  barbarism. 
The  word  Trinity  is  barbarous,  insipid,  profane,  a 
human  invention,  grounded  on  no  testimony  of  the 
word  of  God." 

The  Catholics,  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the 
Christian  Church,  do  not  pretend  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  can  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  They 
confess  that  it  is  received  by  their  church  on  the 
ground  of   tradition  alone.     The  Protestants,   with 


AND   EXPLAINING   IT   AWAY.  53 

singular  inconsistency,  deny  tradition,  but  hold  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  when  the  foundation  upon 
which  the  Catholics  rested  it  is  taken  away.  There 
is  only  one  text  in  the  Bible  which  expresses  any 
thing  like  a  Trinity,  and  that  is  the  seventh  verse  of 
the  fifth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  :  — 
u  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these 
three  are  one."  But  this  text  is  spurious,  and  made 
no  part  of  the  original  Epistle  of  John.  All  schol- 
ars, of  all  parties  and  sects,  who  have  examined 
the  evidence,  have  abandoned  this  text  as  making 
no  part  of  the  word  of  God.  Still,  it  is  cited  and 
preached  from,  as  being  genuine,  by  clergymen  who 
ought  to  be  acquainted  with  this  fact.  Certainly, 
under  these  circumstances,  we  have  a  right  to  retort 
the  charge  of  irreverence  to  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
It  is  quite  as  disrespectful  to  the  Scriptures  to  at- 
tempt to  interpolate  a  passage  into  them  of  mere  hu- 
man device,  as  to  expunge  a  passage  that  is  genuine, 
which  the  Unitarians  have  never  done. 

The  New  Testament,  as  you  well  know,  was  writ- 
ten in  the  Greek  language,  and  we  have  manuscripts  of 
it  written  more  than  a  thousand  years  ago.  We  have 
translations  made  from  it  still  earlier  into  various  lan- 
guages. This  verse  is  not  found  in  any  one  of  them. 
It  is  needless  to  add,  that  its  reception  cannot  be  sus- 
tained for  a  moment.  And  it  seems  to  be  a  fact 
ominous  to  the  cause  of  Trinitarianism,  that  the  only 


54  EXPLAINING   THE   BIBLE 

text  to  which  it  can  appeal  as  direct  testimony  turns 
out  to  be  a  manifest  interpolation.  How  can  it  be 
justified  for  a  moment,  that  a  minister  of  God's  truth 
should  stand  up  and  quote  this  text  in  proof  of  the 
Trinity,  without  giving  any  intimation  of  its  being  an 
interpolation  ? 

There  is  another  passage  which  is  often  quoted  in 
the  Trinitarian  controversy,  to  which  no  weight  ought 
to  be  attached.  It  is  found  in  First  Timothy,  third 
chapter,  sixteenth  verse  :  —  "  Great  is  the  mystery 
of  godliness  :  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justi- 
fied in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the 
Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  in 
glory."  There  are  no  less  than  three  variations  of 
the  ancient  manuscripts,  on  which  most  reliance  is 
placed  in  settling  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 
One  reading  is,  —  "  He  who  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh  was  justified  in  the  spirit. "  Another,  —  u  Great 
is  the  mystery  of  godliness,  which  was  manifested  in 
the  flesh."  The  other  is  the  common  reading. 
"  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. "  The  whole 
Catholic  Church,  throughout  the  world,  knows  no 
other  reading  than  "  Great  is  the  mystery  of  godli- 
ness, which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  as  any  of 
you  may  easily  ascertain  by  examining  a  Catholic 
Bible  at  the  place  referred  to.  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
one  of  the  best  as  well  as  most  learned  of  men, 
wrote  a  distinct  treatise  to  show  that  the  common 
reading  —  "  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  "  —  is 


AND   EXPLAINING    IT   AWAY.  55 

a  corruption  of  the  text,  and  was  unknown  in  the 
churches  for  the  first  three  hundred  years.  By  the 
best  critics,  this  reading  is  rejected,  and  no  honest 
man,  who  knows  the  whole  ground,  will  ever  quote 
this  text  as  having  any  bearing  on  the  Trinitarian 
controversy,  or  quote  it  at  all  without  noticing  the 
fact,  that  the  reading  is  so  doubtful,  that  no  argument 
ought  to  be  drawn  from  it. 

There  is  another  passage  which  is  situated  in  the 
same  way.  It  is  found  in  the  twentieth  chapter, 
twenty-eighth  verse,  of  Acts  :  —  "  Feed  the  church  of 
God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 
This  reading  is  of  modern  origin.  The  true  reading, 
according  to  the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  is,  — 
u  Feed  the  church  of  the  Lord,  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood,"  —  referring,  of  course, 
to  Christ. 

These  three  passages  of  the  New  Testament  are 
admitted,  by  the  best  critical  scholars,  to  be  corrup- 
tions of  the  text.  All  honest  men  ought  to  unite  in 
giving  them  their  true  character.  No  honest  scholar 
can  allow  them  to  be  quoted  as  of  any  authority  in  the 
Trinitarian  controversy.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity were  anywhere  plainly  taught,  then  an  argument 
might  be  allowed  some  force  which  was  itself  doubt- 
ful. But  to  sustain  a  doubtful  doctrine  by  a  text 
which  is  itself  of  doubtful  authority,  is  by  no  means 
to  be  allowed. 

We  do  not  mutilate  the  Scripture,  then,  when  we 


56  EXPLAINING    THE    BIBLE 

insist  that  these  texts  shall  be  set  aside.  We  are 
doing  all  that  in  us  lies  to  restore  it  to  its  primitive 
integrity. 

We  now  come  to  the  second  charge,  that  we  ex- 
plain away  those  passages  which  we  do  not  deny 
and  expunge.  That  is  to  say,  we  put  a  forced  con- 
struction on  them,  and  depart  from  their  natural 
meaning  to  a  degree  wholly  unjustifiable.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this  matter  carefully,  and  see  how  it  stands. 

In  the  first  place,  I  would  observe  that  the  Unita- 
rian has  very  little  to  explain  away.  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  there  is  a  single  text  in  the  Bible  in  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  plainly  taught.  The 
Unitarian,  then,  can  have  but  very  little  that  is  really 
difficult  to  explain  away.  It  is  not  pretended  that 
the  Trinity  is  any  thing  other  than  a  doctrine  of  in- 
ference.  An  inference  may  be  a  mistaken  inference, 
and  it  is  a  very  different  thing  to  explain  away  an  in- 
ference from  explaining  away  a  plain,  direct,  and  pos- 
itive declaration. 

Let  us  try  two  or  three  of  the  strongest  Trinitari- 
an texts.  The  benediction  at  the  close  of  the  Sec- 
ond Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  has  always  been  con- 
sidered as  containing  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
for  the  Trinity  :  — "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all."  Here,  it  is  said,  there 
are  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  brought  together, 
and  a  blessing  implored  from  each  of  them. 


AND   EXPLAINING    IT    AWAY.  57 

In  tbe  first  place,  we  observe,  that  the  order  is 
wrong.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  put  first.  He  is 
thought  to  be  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity. 
And  the  second  person  of  this  Trinity  is  God,  the 
whole  Deity.  "  The  love  of  God."  God,  the 
whole  Deity,  cannot  be  a  person  of  the  Trinity.  If 
the  second  person  of  this  Trinity  is  God,  the  whole 
Deity,  and  is  connected  with  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  particle  "and"  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  cannot  be  God  at  all,  by  the  very  terms  of 
the  proposition.  Instead,  then,  of  being  one  of  the 
strongest  arguments  for  the  Trinity,  this  passage, 
when  analyzed,  is  found  to  be  one  of  the  strong- 
est arguments  against  it.  Had  the  language  been, 
"  the  love  of  the  Father,"  then  the  second  clause 
might  have  designated  a  person  of  the  Trinity,  ac- 
cording to  that  hypothesis  ;  but  being  God,  the  whole 
Deity,  the  second  person  excludes  the  other  persons, 
or  whatever  you  may  call  them,  from  the  Deity  alto- 
gether. 

In  giving  this  analysis,  you  perceive,  we  do  not 
explain  away  the  Scripture,  —  we  simply  explain  it, 
and  show  its  true  meaning  ;  and,  in  doing  so,  we 
explain  away  the  argument  which  it  is  thought  to  con- 
tain in  favor  of  the  Trinity. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  introduction  to  the  Gospel 
of  John.  u  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God."     This  is  con- 


58  EXPLAINING   THE   BIBLE 

sidered  as  one  of  the  principal  proof-texts  of  the  Trin- 
ity, which  the  Unitarian  must  use  much  ingenuity  to 
explain  away.  But  it  teaches  no  Trinity.  The  word 
u  God  "  occurs  three  times  in  it,  but  with  no  intima- 
tion of  any  plurality  in  the  Divine  nature.  The  word 
"  God  "  comprehends  here,  as  it  does  in  other  cases, 
the  whole  Deity.  What,  then,  is  affirmed  ?  That 
the  Word  was  with  God  and  was  God.  The  first 
question  to  settle  is,  Is  the  Word  represented  as  a 
person  ?  u  The  Word  "  is  not  a  proper  name,  not 
the  name  of  a  person,  but  of  a  thing.  But  let  us 
understand  it  as  a  person,  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  second  person 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity 
was  with  God,  and  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity 
was  God."  This  becomes  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
The  second  person  of  the  Trinity  could  not  be  with 
God,  for  he  must  then  have  been  a  person  of  the  very 
God  with  whom  he  was.  The  very  words  of  this  pas- 
sage, then,  instead  of  sustaining  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  contradict  it.  There  is  no  Trinitarian  argu- 
ment, therefore,  in  the  passage  to  explain  away. 

In  order  to  understand  it,  we  must  find  out  what  is 
meant  by  the  term  "  Word."  How  is  God  represent- 
ed as  making  the  world  ?  By  his  word.  He  said,  — 
u  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  But  a 
little  reflection  will  convince  us  that  this  is  a  figura- 
tive expression.  Literally  interpreted,  it  would  teach 
that  God  spoke  through  human  organs,  which  would 


AND   EXPLAINING   IT   AWAY.  DV 

involve  the  supposition  that  God  is  material.  Com- 
mands are  addressed  to  human  or  intelligent  beings, 
and  not  to  inanimate  matter.  The  Scripture  does  not 
mean  to  say  that  God  created  the  universe  by  speak- 
ing, when  it  says,  —  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were 
the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the 
breath  of  his  mouth  "  ;  but  merely  to  represent  the 
exertion  of  God's  creative  power  under  a  human  si- 
militude. The  term  "Word,"  therefore,  represents 
those  attributes  of  God  which  were  exerted  in  the 
creation,  his  wisdom  and  power.  Through  them  God 
created  the  world.  By  the  u  Word,"  then,  in  this 
sense  of  God's  wisdom  and  power,  which  after  all 
are  nothing  else  or  different  from  God  himself,  all 
things  were  made. 

The  same  attributes  of  wisdom  and  power  gave 
being  to  the  human  soul,  and  when  it  was  created 
gave  it  intelligence  and  will.  "  In  it  was  life,  and 
the  life  was  the  light  of  men."  The  same  sense 
is  expressed  in  other  words  :  —  "  The  inspiration  of 
the  Almighty  hath  given  him  understanding."  It  was 
the  same  which  gave  inspiration  to  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament.  But  it  was  especially  manifest  in 
Jesus  Christ,  inasmuch  that  in  him  it  became  incar- 
nate. Divine  power  and  wisdom  came  and  dwelt 
among  us  in  human  form.  Such  full  communica- 
tions of  Divine  power  and  wisdom  did  Jesus  enjoy, 
that  he  seemed  to  the  beholders  to  be  the  peculiar  fa- 
vorite of  Heaven,  to  be  in  such  favor  as  an  only  son 


60  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

is  with  his  father.  And  he  made  as  much  more  per- 
fect a  revelation  to  men,  as  his  communion  with  God 
seemed  more  near  and  intimate,  —  u  For  the  law  was 
given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ. "  That  there  was  no  personal  manifestation 
of  God  appears  by  what  comes  after.  "  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  The  only  begotten  Son, 
who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him." 

"  God  "  and  "  Father"  are  here  used  as  synon- 
ymous expressions.  To  be  in  the  bosom  of  another 
is  not  to  share  his  nature,  but  his  confidence.  The 
Son,  as  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  could  not 
derive  his  superior  knowledge  of  God  from  the  fact 
that  he  was  in  the  bosom  of  God,  for  he  must  have 
been  that  very  God  in  whose  bosom  he  wras.  There 
is  no  Trinitarianism,  then,  in  this  passage.  It  is  not 
said  that  God  is  three  in  any  sense.  The  term 
u Father"  is  used  as  applied  to  God,  and  it  means, 
not  a  person  of  a  trinity,  but  the  whole  Deity,  and 
is  synonymous  with  the  word  "  God."  The  term 
u  Son  "  is  applied  to  Christ,  but  not  as  a  person  of 
the  Trinity,  but  as  a  person  deriving  superior  knowl- 
edge of  God  from  the  fulness  of  the  communications 
which  he  had  received  from  the  whole  Deity.  All 
that  is  asserted  in  it,  when  analyzed,  amounts  to  this, 
—  that,  through  Christ,  God  made  the  most  perfect 
revelation  of  himself  that  had  ever  been  given  to 
man,  more  perfect  than  in  physical  nature,  more  per- 


AND   EXPLAINING   IT   AWAY.  61 

feet  than  in  the  human  soul,  and  more  perfect  than  in 
the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

This  is  the  natural  exposition  of  the  whole  pas- 
sage, when  considered  part  by  part.  This  is  explain- 
ing Scripture,  not  explaining  it  away.  Any  other 
explanation  introduces  confusion  into  theology  and 
into  humanity,  besides  being  forced  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Scriptures. 

Another  passage,  which  is  thought  most  explicitly 
to  teach  the  Trinity,  is  the  form  of  baptism.  Bap- 
tizing them  u  in  the  name,"  or  rather  into  the  name, 
"  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Here  at  least,  it  is  said,  are  the  three  per- 
sons 01  the  Trinity  made  all  equal,  and  the  disciples 
are  commanded  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  them 
all.  Here  is  a  trinity  asserted,  and  no  amount  of 
ingenuity  can  explain  it  away.  But  you  note  that  it 
is  not  asserted  that  each  one  of  these  is  God,  or  that 
they  all  three  are  one  God.  There  is,  then,  no 
trinity  of  persons  asserted,  and  of  course  there  is 
none  to  explain  away.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
is  an  inference,  then,  as  far  as  this  passage  is  con- 
cerned, and  it  is  a  human,  fallible  inference,  and  may 
not  be  a  true  inference. 

Baptism,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
was  a  form  of  public  profession.  John's  baptism 
was  a  baptism  into  repentance,  or  a  profession  of  re- 
pentance, in  anticipation  of  the  advent  of  Christ.  To 
be  baptized  into  Christ,  or  into  Christianity,  was  to 


62  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

be  baptized  into  a  profession  of  belief  in  Jesus  as  the 
true  Messiah.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  Jews. 
In  their  baptism,  it  is  not  probable  that  any  more 
than  the  name  of  Jesus  was  used,  as  Peter  says  to 
them,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  —  u  Repent  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  they  which 
gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized." 

Now,  if  we  consider  the  form  of  baptism  to  relate 
entirely  to  the  Divine  nature,  to  what  will  it  amount  ? 
That  God  exists  in  three  persons,  that  one  of  these 
persons  is  son  to  the  other,  and  the  other  person  is 
called  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  form  of  baptism,  under 
this  view  of  it,  is  a  mere  abstract  proposition,  as  to 
the  mode  of  the  Divine  existence.  It  has  no  relation 
to  the  Christian  religion,  nor  to  our  salvation.  It 
is  a  mere  metaphysical  theory,  and  a  theory  itself 
embarrassed  with  insuperable  difficulties. 

But  interpreting  the  sonship  of  Christ  of  his  of- 
fice, his  being  sent  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
the  seal  of  his  mission,  then  the  form  of  baptism  be- 
comes significant.  It  becomes  a  declaration  of  belief 
in  God  as  the  true  God,  in  Jesus  as  having  been  sent 
and  commissioned  by  him  to  promulgate  and  estab- 
lish Christianity,  and  in  those  miraculous  events 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  Christianity 
was  established  in  the  earth. 

To  this  exposition  there  are  no  metaphysical  ob- 


AND   EXPLAINING   IT   AWAY.  63 

jections,  no  mysterious  and  incomprehensible  Trinity 
in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity.  It  explains  the 
Bible,  and  does  not  explain  it  away  ;  for  it  is  not 
pretended  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  positive- 
ly asserted,  or  that  it  is  any  thing  more  than  an  infer- 
ence from  the  form  of  baptism.  If  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  were  anywhere  plainly  asserted,  then  an 
objection  might  lie  against  Unitarianism  as  explaining 
away  the  Bible.  All  it  has  to  do  is  to  explain  away 
an  inference  which  fallible  men  have  drawn  from  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  Scriptures,  and  which  inference  in 
itself  involves  inconsistencies  and  contradictions. 

Perhaps  the  nearest  approach  which  the  Unitarian 
makes  to  being  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  explaining 
away  the  Scriptures  is  in  his  exposition  of  Thomas's 
exclamation,  recorded  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of 
John.  u  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
My  Lord  and  my  God."  Here  the  appellation 
"  God  "  is  applied  to  Christ.  The  question  between 
the  Unitarian  and  the  Trinitarian  is,  What  did  Thom- 
as mean  by  it  ?  Did  he  mean  to  recognize  Jesus  as 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews,  the  Creator  and  Sovereign 
of  the  universe  ?  or  did  he  mean  to  apply  the  appel- 
lation "  God"  to  him  as  the  Jews  did  the  same  ap- 
pellation to  kings  and  magistrates,  as  a  title  of  the 
highest  respect  ?  or  was  it  merely  an  exclamation  of 
surprise  which  escaped  his  lips  in  a  moment  of  sud- 
den transport,  and  not  intended  as  a  logical  affirma- 
tion of  any  proposition  in  regard  to  Christ's  nature  ? 


64  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

Most  Unitarians  adopt  the  second  explanation.  The 
word  "  God  "  in  the  Bible  is  not  exclusively  appro- 
priated to  Jehovah.  It  is  likewise  applied  to  kings 
and  magistrates.  "  God  standeth  in  the  congregation 
of  the  mighty,  he  judgeth  among  the  Gods.  How 
long  will  ye  judge  unjustly,  and  accept  the  persons  of 
the  wicked  ?  "  "  I  have  said,  Ye  are  Gods,  and  all 
of  you  are  children  of  the  Most  High.  But  ye  shall 
die  like  men,  and  perish  like  one  of  the  people." 
In  a  psalm  composed  in  honor  of  one  of  the  reign- 
ing monarchs  of  Israel,  the  writer  speaks  thus  :  — 
"  My  heart  is  indicting  a  good  matter  :  I  speak  of  the 
things  which  I  have  made  touching  the  king  :  my 
tongue  is  the  pen  of  a  ready  writer.  Thou  art  fairer 
than  the  children  of  men  :  grace  is  poured  into  thy 
lips  :  therefore  God  hath  blessed  thee  for  ever." 
"  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,  the  scep- 
tre of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre.  Thou  lovest 
righteousness,  and  hatest  wickedness  ;  therefore  God, 
even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of 
gladness  above  thy  fellows."  This  passage  is  quoted 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  applied  to  Christ. 
It  must  be  applied  to  Christ,  then,  not  in  his  divine 
nature,  but  his  Messianic  dignity,  for  in  it  is  contained 
this  expression  :  —  "  Therefore  God,  even  thy  God, 
hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy 
fellows."  Christ,  in  his  divine  nature,  cannot  have 
a  God,  cannot  be  exalted,  cannot  have  fellows. 
Thomas,   then,    may   have    applied    the    epithet 


AND    EXPLAINING    IT    AWAY.  65 

u  God  "  to  Christ  in  the  same  sense,  not  meaning  to 
address  him  as  Jehovah,  but  as  one  whom  Jehovah 
had  exalted  to  the  highest  dignity. 

The  circumstances  which  determine  my  mind  to 
this  interpretation  are  these.  The  point  at  issue  be- 
tween Thomas  and  his  fellow-disciples  was  not  the 
Deity  of  Jesus,  but  whether  he  were  risen  from  the 
dead.  "  But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  was  not 
with  them  when  Jesus  came.  The  other  disciples, 
therefore,  said  unto  him,  We  have  seen  the  Lord." 
That  the  disciples  had  seen  Jesus  was  no  evidence 
that  he  was  Jehovah,  u  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  or 
can  see,"  but  only  that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead. 
"  But  he  said  unto  them,  Except  I  shall  see  in 
his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
hand  into  his  side,  I  will  not  believe."  This  evi- 
de»ce  was  given  him.  He  saw  and  felt,  he  had  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  two  of  his  senses,  —  to 
what  ?  that  Jesus  was  Jehovah  ?  —  Jehovah  can  nei- 
ther be  touched  nor  seen  ;  —  no ;  but  that  Jesus  was 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  of  consequence  must  be  the 
true  Messiah.  His  words,  then,  are  to  be  interpret- 
ed as  an  exclamation  of  satisfaction  as  to  the  point 
upon  which  he  had  doubted,  that  his  Master  was  risen 
from  the  dead.  And  putting  any  meaning  upon  this 
passage,  it  does  not  assert  that  God  is  three  in  any 
sense,  and  leaves  the  Unitarian  nothing  to  explain 
away. 

What  John,  who  was  a  witness  to  this  transaction, 
5 


66  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

considered  to  be  proved  by  it,  is  evident  from  the 
next  verse  but  one  :  —  "  And  many  other  signs  truly 
did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are 
not  written  in  this  book.  But  these  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe,"  —  what  ?  —  that  Jesus  is  God  ?  — 
no  ;  but  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his 
name."  To  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  is  to 
believe,  not  that  he  is  God,  but  the  anointed  of  God. 
The  phrase  "  Son  of  God,"  is  merely  a  synonyme 
for  "  Messiah." 

But  the  Trinitarian  has  an  infinitely  harder  task  be- 
fore him.  He  has  something  to  explain  away.  The 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  is  not  a  doctrine  of  in- 
ference. It  is  directly  asserted  over  and  over,  and 
there  is  scarcely  a  page  of  the  Bible  on  which  it  is 
not  either  expressed  or  taken  for  granted.  The  Trin- 
itarian, in  order  to  sustain  his  creed,  has  all  these 
texts,  not  only  to  explain,  but  to  explain  away. 

The  word  "  God  "  occurs  more  than  two  thou- 
sand times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  nowhere  with 
any  intimations  of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  his  nature. 
All  these  texts  are  arguments  for  the  unity  of  God, 
and  must  by  the  Trinitarian  be  explained  away.  One 
of  the  chief  precepts  written  down  in  the  book  of 
the  law  was,  —  "Jehovah,  our  God,  Jehovah  is 
one."  Here  is  a  positive  affirmation  of  the  unity  of 
God,  in  the  most  absolute  sense.  This  is  not  only 
to  be  explained,  but  explained  away.     And  the  ex- 


AND   EXPLAINING    IT   AWAY.  67 

planation  that  is  usually  given  of  it  is,  that  it  is  not 
intended  to  contradict  the  idea  that  there  may  be  three 
persons  in  God,  but  only  that  there  is  one  God,  in 
opposition  to  the  many  gods  of  the  heathen. 

But  there  is  another  text,  indeed,  many  other 
texts,  in  which  a  trinity  of  persons  is  equally  con- 
tradicted. In  the  bush,  God  gives  his  name  as  "  1 
Am,"  and  tells  Moses  to  say  to  the  children  of  Is- 
rael, "  I  Am  hath  sent  me."  If  there  were  three 
persons  in  God,  is  there  any  possible  way  in  which 
the  God  of  truth  could  have  so  effectually  misled 
Moses  and  the  Israelites  as  to  the  unity  or  plurality 
of  the  Divine  nature,  if  he  really  were  a  trinity  of 
persons,  as  in  the  use  of  such  language  as  this,  des- 
ignating his  very  essence  by  the  name,  "I  Am  "  ? 
Accordingly,  neither  Moses  nor  the  Jews  ever  had 
the  least  conception  of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  God, 
from  that  day  to  this. 

We  now  come  down  to  the  New  Testament. 
Did  Jesus  teach  any  new  doctrine  with  respect  to 
the  Divine  nature  ?  He  made  the  unity  of  God  the 
foundation-stone  of  his  religion,  as  Moses  had  done 
of  his.  He  quotes  the  very  words  of  Moses  :  — 
u  The  first  of  all  the  commandments  is,  Jehovah, 
your  God,  Jehovah  is  one."  This  passage  must 
not  only  be  explained,  but  explained  away,  before 
there  can  be  any  room  to  prove  the  Trinity.  Here 
is  a  positive  assertion,  by  Christ  himself,  of  the 
unity  of  God.      To   explain   away  a  positive  asser- 


68  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

tion  is  a  very  different  thing  from  explaining  away 
a  mere  inference. 

Christ  prayed,  and  often.  But  then,  to  explain 
that  recorded  fact,  it  is  said  that  he  prayed  in  his  hu- 
man nature.  We  answer,  that  it  is  mere  assumption 
to  imagine  that  he  had  two  natures.  Such  a  fact  is 
nowhere  stated  in  the  Bible,  and  cannot  be  assumed 
till  it  is  proved.  But  if  he  taught  a  trinity,  and 
knew  that  a  trinity  existed,  if  he  prayed  in  his  hu- 
man nature,  he  ought  to  have  prayed  to  a  trinity. 
But  he  never  prayed  to  a  trinity. 

In  order  to  make  the  Bible  bear  a  Trinitarian  ex- 
planation, another  hypothesis  is  invented,  that  the 
word  "  Father,"  when  applied  to  God,  sometimes 
means  the  first  person  of  a  trinity,  and  sometimes 
the  whole  Deity.  But  that  hypothesis,  too,  ought 
first  to  be  proved  before  it  is  used.  At  least,  one 
passage  ought  to  be  shown  in  which  the  word  "  Fa- 
ther "  means  the  first  person  of  a  trinity,  for  the 
moment  it  is  allowed  that  the  words  "  God  "  and 
M  Father  "  are  coextensive  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  abandoned.  Let  us 
try  a  few  passages.  To  the  woman  of  Samaria 
Christ  said,  —  u  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when 
the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in 
spirit  and  in  truth.  God  is  a  spirit,  and  they  that 
worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth." 
Here  "  God  "  and  "  Father  "  are  used  as  equal 
and  coextensive  terms.     If  the  term  "  Father  "  be 


AND    EXPLAINING    IT    AWAY.  69 

taken  to  mean  the  first  person  of  a  trinity,  then  it 
would  follow  that  the  first  person  only  is  an  object 
of  worship.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time. 
The  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him."  Here  the  word 
"  him  "  refers  to  God,  whom  no  one  hath  seen,  and 
"  Father  "  is  coextensive  with  "  God."  The  sec- 
ond person  of  a  trinity  cannot  be  in  the  bosom  of 
the  first,  and  thus  derive  his  knowledge  from  him,  for 
they  are  equal  and  the  same.  Such  phraseology  as 
this,  so  far  from  being  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
Trinity,  and  requiring  of  the  Unitarian  to  be  ex- 
plained away,  contains  a  strong  argument  for  the 
unity  of  God,  and  therefore  must  be  explained  away 
by  the  Trinitarian  before  his  hypothesis  can  be  re- 
ceived. 

The  Lord's  prayer  contains  a  strong  argument  for 
the  Unitarian  faith  :  —  "  Our  Father  which  art  in 
heaven."  M  Father  "  here  either  stands  for  the 
whole  Deity,  or  it  authorizes  us  to  worship  only  the 
first  person  of  the  Trinity.  If  it  is  conceded  that  it 
comprehends  the  whole  Deity,  then  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, that  in  order  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  Father  "  must  be 
shifted  to  meet  circumstances,  —  sometimes  be  taken 
to  mean  the  first  person  of  a  trinity,  and  sometimes 
the  whole  Deity.  Such  a  mode  of  interpretation 
does  not  suit  the  dignity  of  the  word  of  God.  With 
these   considerations    in    our  minds,   let    us    go    to 


70  EXPLAINING   THE    BIBLE 

Christ's  last  prayer  with  his  disciples  :  —  "  Father, 
the  hour  is  come  ;  glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  thee.  As  thou  hast  given  him  power 
over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as 
many  as  thou  hast  given  him.  And  this  is  life  eter- 
nal, that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  Here  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  term  "  Father  "  embraces  the 
whole  Deity,  for  he  calls  him  "  the  only  true  God." 
If  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God,  then  the  term 
u  Father  "  either  includes  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost, 
or  shuts  them  out  of  Deity  altogether.  Christ 
prayed  either  in  his  human  or  his  divine  nature.  If 
he  prayed  in  his  divine  nature,  then  his  divine  nature 
was  not  God  ;  for  he  prays  to  the  only  true  God  to 
glorify  him  icith  the  glory  that  he  had  icith  him  be- 
fore the  world  was.  One  equal  person  of  a  trinity 
could  not  have  received  glory  from  the  only  true 
God  before  the  world  was.  If  he  did  not  pray  in 
his  divine  nature,  he  prayed  in  his  human  nature,  and 
applied  the  term  u  Son  "  to  his  human  nature  :  — 
"  Glorify  thy  Son,"  —  afterwards,  "  Glorify  me." 
If  the  title ."  Son  "  is  applied  to  his  human  nature 
here,  it  may  be  in  every  case,  and  thus  be  no  argu- 
ment for  the  Trinity  anywhere.  If  the  term  M  Fa- 
ther," when  applied  to  God,  here  embraces  the 
whole  Deity,  it  may  in  every  case,  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  falls  in  pieces  by  the  simple  analysis  of 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed. 


AND    EXPLAINING    IT    AWAY.  71 

So  in  this  case,  as  in  every  other,  the  Unitarian  is 
not  obliged  to  explain  away  the  Bible,  but  only  to 
explain  it,  and  that  very  explanation  explains  away 
the  Trinity. 

There  are  hosts  of  passages  equally  strong. 
"  There  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God 
and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  It  is  impossible 
to  explain  this  away.  u  Blessed  be  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  A  person  of 
the  Trinity  cannot  have  a  God.  But  this  passage 
affirms  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  not  only  has  a 
Father,  but  a  God. 

Another  is  found  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse :  —  "  The  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
God  gave  unto  him."  The  advocates  of  the  Trin- 
ity have  never  been  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  expo- 
sition of  this  passage.  There  are  two  difficulties, 
either  of  which  is  insurmountable.  One  is,  that  this 
revelation  is  represented  as  having  been  given  to 
Christ  years  after  his  ascension  and  exaltation  to 
heaven.  If  Christ  were  God,  or  an  equal  person 
of  the  Trinity,  no  such  revelation  could  possibly 
have  been  made  to  him,  for  he  must  have  been  es- 
sentially omniscient. 

The  other  difficulty  is,  that  the  revelation  is  made 
to  Jesus  Christ  by  God  ;  not  by  the  Father,  but  by 
God,  the  whole  Trinity.  Jesus  Christ,  then,  is 
shut  out  of  Deity,  both  by  the  facts  related  and  by 
the  language  used  ;  by  his  receiving  a  revelation  at 


72  EXPLAINING    THE   BIBLE 

all,  and  his  receiving  it  from  God,  the  undivided  De- 
ity. Here  the  usual  resort  to  the  distinction  between 
the  human  and  divine  nature  of  Christ  will  not  avail. 
Professor  Stuart  of  Andover  tells  us  that  Christ, 
though  exalted  to  heaven,  will  be  a  dependent  being 
in  his  mediatorial  capacity  till  the  consummation  of 
all  things.  But  this,  to  my  mind,  is  no  explanation 
how  omniscience  can  be  assumed  and  laid  aside  at 
pleasure,  or  can  be  conferred  and  recalled,  since  it 
must  be  an  essential  and  inherent  attribute,  or  not  be 
possessed  at  all. 

There  is  another  passage,  which  has  given  the  de- 
fenders of  the  Trinity  greater  trouble,  and  has  never 
yet  found  a  satisfactory  solution.  It  is  found  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  Mark  :  —  "  But  of  that  day 
and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father 
only."  Here  omniscience  is  expressly  denied  of 
the  "  Son."  Without  some  explanation,  this  pas- 
sage is  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  to  the 
Deity  of  Christ.  In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  it, 
Trinitarians  give  two  explanations.  One  is,  that 
Christ  says  this  of  his  human  nature,  and  does  not 
mean  to  deny  omniscience  to  his  divine  nature. 
This,  however,  would  bear  hard  on  his  veracity  and 
plain-dealing.  It  would  admit  that  the  title  "  Son," 
when  used  of  Christ  in  connection  with  the  title 
"  Father "  when  applied  to  God,  means  nothing 
more  than  his  human  nature.    And  this  would  greatly 


AND    EXPLAINING    IT    AWAY. 


73 


weaken  the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  the 
form  of  baptism,  —  "  Baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,"  &c.  That  it  is 
applied  to  him  in  his  highest  capacity,  would  seem 
to  be  intimated  by  the  climax,  in  which  Christ  is 
put  between  the  angels  in  heaven  and  God. 

The  other  exposition  is,  that  Christ  did  not  know 
when  the  day  of  judgment  or  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem was  to  be,  in  the  sense  of  not  being  com- 
missioned to  make  it  known.  But  philologists  have 
sought  in  vain,  in  all  Greek  literature,  for  a  single  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  the  word  here  rendered  "  know- 
eth  "  with  any  such  meaning.  This  text,  therefore, 
must  remain  as  it  is,  wholly  incapable  of  any  expla- 
nation consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
It  cannot  be  explained  away. 

I  trust  that  I  have  now  sufficiently  answered  the 
charge  made  against  Unitarians,  of  mutilating  and  ex- 
plaining away  the  Scriptures.  I  have  shown  that  the 
Unitarian  has  very  little  to  explain  away.  The 
Trinitarian,  on  the  other  hand,  has  the  current  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  against  him,  and  many  passages 
of  which  no  satisfactory  explanation  has  ever  been 
given. 


DISCOURSE    IV. 


UNITARIANISM  NOT   MERE  MORALITY. 

Therefore  all  things  whatsoever   ye  would  that   men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  j  for  this  is 

THE    LAW    AND    THE    PROPHETS.  —  Matthew  vii.  12. 

It  is  often  said  of  Unitarian  ministers,  that  they 
preach  mere  morality.  After  hearing  a  sermon, 
modelled  as  near  as  the  best  intentions  can  make  it 
upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Orthodox  hear- 
er goes  away  and  says,  —  "  That  was  a  very  good 
moral  discourse,  but  there  was  no  religion  in  it." 
So  it  is  said  of  Unitarians  as  a  class,  that  they  are 
very  good  moral  people,  but  they  have  no  religion. 
To  my  mind,  there  is  no  slight  praise  in  such  cen- 
sure as  this.  In  order  to  censure  us,  our  critics 
are  compelled  to  reverse  the  rule  of  the  Saviour. 
He  has  given  us  the  rule  of  judgment  in  these  terms  : 
—  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  A  corrupt 
tree  cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit."  But  here  the 
fruit  is  acknowledged  to  be  good,  yet  the  tree  is  con- 
demned as  corrupt. 

But  let  us  take  up  and   examine  the  charge  of 


UNITARIANISM    NOT   MERE    MORALITY.  75 

preaching  mere  morality.  What  is  mere  morality  ? 
Perhaps  the  principle  of  mere  morality  may  be  sum- 
med up  in  a  single  sentence,  —  u  Honesty  is  the 
best  policy."  An  enlightened  regard  to  self-interest 
prescribes  a  course  of  strict  morality.  In  short, 
that  which  is  right  is  to  be  practised,  not  because  it 
is  right,  but  because  it  is  expedient.  A  man  must  not 
steal,  because  the  probability  is  that  his  theft  will  be 
discovered.  A  man  must  not  lie,  because  he  is  sure 
to  be  detected,  and  fall  into  disgrace.  He  must  not 
plunge  into  sensuality,  for  fear  of  injuring  his  health, 
or  wasting  his  substance.  He  must  not  oppress  the 
poor  and  the  dependent,  for  fear  of  getting  their  ill- 
will,  and  becoming  unpopular.  A  preacher  who 
should  appeal  to  such  motives,  and  advocate  such 
principles,  would  preach  mere  morality. 

But  this  charge  is  intended  to  go  further.  It  is 
intended  to  deny,  as  well  as  affirm.  It  is  intended  to 
assert  that  we  do  not  preach  the  necessity  of  a  relig- 
ious faith  as  the  basis  of  moral  principle  and  as  the 
basis  of  moral  conduct.  It  is  intended  to  deny  that 
we  lay  any  stress  on  religious  emotion,  and  to  insinu- 
ate that  we  pass  it  over  as  enthusiasm  and  fanaticism. 
It  is  intended  to  deny  that  we  recognize  as  impor- 
tant religious  experience,  that  we  regard  all  spiritual 
renovation  as  a  delusion,  and  the  growing  peace  and 
happiness  of  a  righteous  man  as  a  superstitious  fancy. 

I  pronounce  all  these  charges  to  be  wholly  and 
utterly  false.     In  the  first  place,  we  assemble  in  a 


76  UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

church.  It  would  not  be  requisite  for  us  to  have 
churches  in  order  to  preach  mere  morality.  A  lec- 
ture-room would  be  more  appropriate  for  that  purpose. 
To  preach  mere  morality  is  to  teach  philosophy,  and 
the  professor's  chair  is  the  proper  place  for  that  spe- 
cies of  instruction.  We  assemble  in  a  church. 
And  what  is  a  church  ?  It  is  a  place  of  worship, 
devoutly  consecrated  and  set  apart  for  the  services 
of  religion,  by  solemn  prayer  and  dedicatory  rites. 
It  is  called,  and  felt  by  us  to  be,  "  none  other  than 
the  house  of  God,  and  the  gate  of  heaven."  Ded- 
icated to  God,  and  consecrated  to  religious  pur- 
poses, our  religious  regard  and  veneration  for  the 
place  are  expressed,  not  in  words,  but  in  actions, 
which  speak  louder,  and  are  more  to  be  believed, 
—  by  the  decorum,  the  silence,  the  reverential  re- 
spect, which  is  manifested  here.  Is  this  mere  mo- 
rality ?  Is  this  negation  of  all  religious  sentiment 
and  emotion  ?  This  deportment,  which  is  sponta- 
neous and  unstudied,  is  the  best  possible  demonstra- 
tion that  we  do  not  come  here  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  a  mere  moral  lecture,  based  upon  selfish  cal- 
culation and  a  heartless,  worldly  expediency  ;  that 
we  do  not  fall  behind  our  fellow-Christians  of  other 
names  in  hearty  reverence  for  sacred  things. 

Here  we  worship  God.  Not  only  are  we  awed  by 
an  especial  sense  of  his  presence,  but  we  take  his 
great  name  upon  our  lips,  we  lift  up  our  thoughts  to  the 
contemplation  of  his  Divine  perfections.     We  adore 


UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  77 

him  as  the  Almighty  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  as 
the  High  and  Mighty  Ruler  of  the  universe,  as  the 
Holy  One  who  inhabiteth  eternity,  in  whose  sight 
the  heavens  are  not  clean,  and  the  angels  chargeable 
with  folly.  We  worship  him  as  the  Former  of  our 
bodies  and  the  Father  of  our  spirits  ;  as  the  Supreme 
Lawgiver,  whose  own  finger  hath  written  his  statutes 
in  the  tablet  of  our  hearts  ;  as  the  ever-present  Wit- 
ness, to  whom  all  hearts  are  open  and  all  secrets 
are  known,  who  cannot  be  deceived,  and  will  not  be 
mocked  ;  as  the  Omnipotent  and  Eternal  Rewarder, 
whose  presence  is  universal  and  his  administration 
without  end,  and  who  will,  therefore,  bring  every 
work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether 
it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil. 

Is  this  the  administration  of  mere  morality,  which 
has  no  regard  to  God  or  his  moral  government  of  the 
universe  ? 

Here  we  sing  God's  praise,  in  hymns,  for  the  most 
part,  composed  by  those  who  entertain  theological 
opinions  similar  to  our  own,  or  by  those  who  differ 
from  us  in  some  particulars  of  faith,  but  whose  sen- 
timents on  subjects  in  which  their  opinions  and  ours 
coincide  we  do  not  hesitate  to  adopt.  Can  any  hu- 
man being,  without  invading  the  prerogative  of  Om- 
niscience, take  it  upon  himself  to  decide,  that  this 
part  of  our  worship  is  a  mere  formality,  that  no  emo- 
tion of  our  hearts  accompanies  the  song  of  thanks- 
giving, the  confession  of  penitence,  the  avowal  of 
confidence  and  trust  ? 


78  UNITARIANISM   NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

Here  the  Scriptures  are  read,  and  carefully  sep- 
arated from  all  other  books,  and  placed  infinitely- 
above  them  in  authority  and  respect.  They  are  ac- 
knowledged as  containing  the  record  of  a  revelation 
from  God.  Infinite  pains  are  taken  to  find  out  their 
meaning,  to  illustrate  them  by  ancient  monuments 
and  by  contemporaneous  history.  To  them  the  ulti- 
mate appeal  is  made,  when  we  would  ascertain  what 
is  the  mind  and  will  of  God.  Especially  do  we  ac- 
knowledge the  New  Testament  as  the  foundation  of 
our  religion.  All  our  religious  usages  are  founded 
on  the  facts  which  it  relates.  The  reason  why  we 
suspend  our  worldly  avocations  and  assemble  in  our 
churches  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  is,  that  the 
New  Testament  records  the  fact,  that  on  that  day 
Jesus  Christ,  "  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith," 
rose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to  heaven.  If  we 
did  not  believe  this  fact,  we  should  pursue  our  cus- 
tomary employments.  That  fact  to  us  puts  the  seal 
of  God's  truth  on  all  that  he  has  taught  us.  That 
fact  makes  the  Gospel  to  us  to  be,  in  a  manner,  the 
voice  of  Christ,  now  speaking  to  us  from  the  invis- 
ible world,  from  the  exaltation  to  which  he  is  raised, 
and  which  in  Oriental  figure  is  expressed  by  his  be- 
ing seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God. 

We  baptize  our  children  in  his  name,  together 
with  the  name  of  God  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by 
that  rite  we  express  our  obligation  to  baptize  their 
souls  with  his  truth,  early  to  imbue  their  minds  with 


UNITARIANISM   NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  79 

the  principles  of  his  religion,  by  precept  and  by  ex- 
ample to  train  them  up  to  be  his  true  disciples  here, 
that  they  and  we  may  be  partakers  of  his  glory  here- 
after. 

Would  not  all  this  be  absurd,  if  we  believed  and 
practised  nothing  but  a  worldly  morality,  and  are 
kept  within  the  bounds  of  decency  only  by  the  maxim 
of  earthly  wisdom,  that  honesty  is  the  best  policy  ? 

We  celebrate  the  communion  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. How  can  we  do  this  without  religious  faith, 
when  all  that  gives  the  rite  any  interest  or  signifi- 
cance to  us  is  the  relation  which  Christ  sustains  to 
us  as  the  Ambassador  of  God's  mercy,  the  Revealer 
of  his  will,  the  faithful  and  true  Witness,  and  our 
Forerunner  into  heaven  ?  Did  we  not  believe  in 
him  in  these  official -capacities,  the  Lord's  Supper 
would  be  a  mockery,  unmeaning  and  superfluous,  and 
it  would  be  soon  abandoned.  It  is  because  his  doc- 
trine to  us  is  the  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
of  which  if  a  man  eat  he  shall  live  for  ever,  which 
he  died  on  the  cross  to  give  us,  that  the  Eucharist 
has  the  power  to  move  our  religious  affections.  It 
is  because  his  blood  is  the  seal  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant, in  which  God  stipulates  to  pardon  the  penitent, 
and  restore  them  to  his  favor,  that  the  cup  of  thanks- 
giving has  to  us  any  interest  or  signification.  It  is 
because  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  communion  with  the 
living  and  the  dead,  the  Church  Universal  on  earth 
and  in  heaven,  that  it  draws  us  towards  it  as  a  sacred 


80  UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

ceremony,  and  gives  it  a  spritual  power  to  sanctify, 
strengthen,  and  console  us.  Could  such  a  rite  be 
perpetuated  among  us  if  we  had  neither  religious 
faith  nor  feeling,  and  all  our  real  religion  amounted 
to  nothing  more  than  the  calculating  prudence,  that 
honesty  is  the  best  policy  ?  Such  conduct  would  be 
wholly  inexplicable. 

But  this  charge  is  intended  to  reach  farther,  and 
to  throw  upon  us  the  odium  of  denying  the  reality, 
the  value,  and  validity  of  religious  experience.  Let 
us  examine  this  charge,  and  see  if  it  be  just. 

In  the  first  place,  the  very  fact  of  preaching  to 
make  men  better  recognizes  a  difference  between  a 
bad  man  and  a  good  man,  and  the  fact  that  both  the 
bad  man  and  the  good  man  are  sensible  of  this  dif- 
ference. This  consciousness  is  religious  experience. 
No  man  from  a  bad  man  can  become  a  good  man 
without  religious  experience.  The  means  we  rec- 
ommend him  to  use,  in  order  to  become  a  good  man, 
are  religious  means.  We  tell  him  that  the  shortest 
way  to  morality  is  through  religion,  and  the  only  sure 
foundation  for  morality  is  religion.  If  a  man  becomes 
truly  religious,  his  morality  will  take  care  of  itself. 
But  we  tell  him,  too,  that,  unless  his  morality  keep 
pace  with  his  religion,  he  is  liable  to  the  grossest  self- 
deception.  John  the  Baptist  must  first  come  with  his 
baptism  of  repentance  and  reformation,  before  Jesus 
can  come  with  his  Gospel  of  holiness  and  sanctifica- 
tion.     Sin  we  believe  to  be  a  disease,  to  the  cure  of 


TJNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  81 

which  abstinence  and  regimen  are  as  necessary  as 
medicine.  Any  relapse  into  old  habits  nullifies  all 
the  effects  of  medicine,  and  renders  recovery  impos- 
sible. 

We  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  We  be- 
lieve that  it  is  the  most  powerful  agency  that  is 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  soul  of  man.  We  believe 
that  in  true  prayer  the  soul  opens  itself  to  the  influx 
of  Divine  influence,  just  as  the  upturned  flower 
drinks  in  the  vivifying  rays  of  light  and  heat  from  the 
sun.  We  believe  that  God  always  gives  his  holy 
spirit  to  them  that  ask  it.  But  we  believe,  too,  that 
right  moral  dispositions  are  necessary  to  the  truth, 
the  reality,  and,  of  consequence,  the  efficacy  of 
prayer.  We  believe  that  the  prayers  of  the  wicked 
are  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God.  We  be- 
lieve that,  if  we  regard  iniquity  in  our  hearts,  the 
Lord  will  not  hear  our  prayer.  This  is  as  true  of 
those  who  reckon  themselves  among  the  saints,  as 
of  those  who  acknowledge  themselves  among  the  sin- 
ners. True  repentance  is  necessary  to  forgiveness. 
Reformation  is  the  only  sure  proof  of  repentance. 
"  If  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  re- 
memberest  that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee, 
leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way ; 
first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brpther,  and  then  come  and 
offer  thy  gift."  We  believe  in  such  sort  of  religious 
experience  as  this. 

We  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  but  not  only 
6 


82  UNITARIANISM   NOT   MERE    MORALITY. 

must  prayer  be  offered  with  right  moral  dispositions, 
but  directed  to  proper  and  legitimate  objects.  There 
is  no  power  in  prayer  to  compel  God  to  do  what  is 
not  in  the  order  of  his  providence,  or  to  induce  him 
to  do  that  for  us  which  he  has  made  it  our  duty  to 
do  for  ourselves.  We  cannot  cause  a  harvest  to 
spring  out  of  the  earth,  merely  by  praying  for  it. 
We  must  till  the  soil  and  cast  in  the  seed,  and  then 
we  may  legitimately  ask  the  blessing  of  God  on 
our  labors.  So  we  pray,  "  Give  us  day  by  day  our 
daily  bread  "  ;  but  we  do  not  expect  that  God  will 
give  it  to  us  without  labor.  If  we  are  reasonable 
beings,  we  ask  his  blessing  to  prosper  our  labors. 
So  the  Christian  prays  that  he  may  know  the  truth, 
but,  if  he  understands  the  nature  of  prayer,  he  does 
not  expect  that  God  will  communicate  to  him  that 
knowledge  by  immediate  revelation,  without  study  or 
examination.  So  he  prays  to  God  that  he  may  sub- 
due his  evil  propensities,  but  not  without  his  own 
efforts  to  do  so.  We  believe  that  God  grants  the 
prayers  of  his  children,  just  as  far  as  he  sees  it  to  be 
for  their  good.  Is  this  preaching  mere  morality  ? 
Is  this  denying  religious  experience  ? 

We  admit  that  our  estimate  of  morality  may  be 
different  from  that  of  our  fellow-Christians,  and  may 
be  higher.  When  we  look  around  us,  and  perceive 
that  the  want  of  common  honesty  is  one  of  the  sorest, 
if  not  the  very  worst,  of  the  evils  by  which  our 
country  is  at   this  moment  afflicted,  and  find  that  it 


UNITARIANISM   NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  83 

extends  not  alone  to  those  who  profess  to  be  gov- 
erned by  nothing  higher  than  a  mere  worldly  moral- 
ity, but  to  the  so-called  religious,  and  that  this  sad 
deficiency  is  sometimes  found  in  the  management  of 
religious  affairs,  and  that  some  of  the  most  fatal  and 
ruinous  disgusts  to  all  religion  are  taken  from  the  de- 
tection of  the  want  of  moral  principle  in  those  who 
make  the  loudest  religious  pretensions,  we  are  some- 
times tempted  to  subscribe  to  the  common  sentiment, 
—  "  An  honest  man  's  the  noblest  work  of  God." 
We  may  at  least  be  permitted  to  place  integrity  at 
the  foundation  of  all  human  excellence. 

We  do  differ  somewhat  from  some  Christians  in 
our  estimate  of  the  relation  which  morality  bears  to 
God.  We  believe  that  the  law  of  morality  is  God's 
law,  —  those  conceptions  of  right  and  wrong  which 
God  has  written  on  the  human  heart.  If  conscience 
is  God's  law,  then  obedience  to  conscience  is  obe- 
dience to  God,  and  in  so  far  is  a  religious  act,  even 
if  no  especial  thought  of  God  comes  into  the  mind. 
Disobedience  to  conscience  is  sin,  and  sin,  from  its 
very  nature,  is  an  irreligious  act,  a  violation  of  relig- 
ious obligation.  If  disobedience  to  conscience  be 
sin,  then  obedience  to  conscience  must  be  virtue, 
and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God,  or  the  ways  of 
God  are  not  equal,  and  his  government  is  a  tyranny. 
If,  when  the  choice  is  presented  to  me  to  do  wrong 
or  right,  and  it  is  counted  sin  to  me  if  I  do  wrong, 
and  not  counted  a  merit  if  I  do  right,  then  I  affirm 


84  UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

that  I  am  not  placed  in  a  condition  of  fair  moral  pro- 
bation. » 

It  may  be  affirmed,  that  the  highest  and  purest 
condition  of  the  soul,  the  sublimest  virtue,  is  that 
action  in  which  the  soul  chooses  that  which  is  right 
merely  because  it  is  right,  without  hope  of  reward 
or  fear  of  punishment.  The  very  best  persons  in 
the  world,  perhaps,  are  those  who  are  least  con- 
scious of  their  excellence.  Most  significantly  is  it 
mentioned  by  Christ,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
the  righteous,  at  the  judgment-day,  to  find  themselves 
commended  and  welcomed  to  eternal  joy.  "  Then 
shall  the  righteous  answer  him,  saying,  When  saw 
we  thee  hungry  and  fed  thee,  or  thirsty  and  gave  thee 
drink  ?  » 

Goodness  is  like  health,  the  highest  and  most  ro- 
bust states  of  it  are  attended  with  a  blessed  uncon- 
sciousness. It  is  not  a  good  sign  to  be  always  feel- 
ing the  pulse  of  one's  own  moral  health.  It  is  not  a 
sign  of  spiritual  soundness.  All  religious  men  have 
religious  experience,  but  the  best  and  the  wisest  talk 
the  least  about  it.  It  is  dangerous  to  talk  about  it, 
as  it  is  for  us  to  be  over-anxious  in  inquiring  into  the 
condition  of  the  physical  system.  There  is  but  one 
Being  to  whom  we  are  capable  of  revealing  our 
whole  hearts,  and  he  knows  them  already,  and  needs 
not  that  we  unveil  them  before  him.  There  are  some 
persons  whom  religious  experience,  as  it  is  called, 
seems  to  injure,  instead  of  benefiting.     They  were 


UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  85 

excellent  before,  in  spontaneously  obeying  the  law 
written  upon  the  heart.  But  under  the  influence  of 
religious  experience,  as  it  is  technically  denominated, 
they  become  conceited,  self-righteous,  overbearing, 
censorious,  pharisaical,  and  lose  the  virtues  of  sim- 
plicity, candor,  kindness,  and  charity,  and  gain  noth- 
ing in  their  place  but  sanctimony  and  spiritual  pride. 

If  Unitarians  have  erred  in  laying  too  little  stress 
upon  religious  experience,  and  looking  with  too 
much  distrust  on  the  results  of  religious  excitements, 
they  have  been  driven  into  it  by  the  disgusting  cant 
and  pretension  they  have  witnessed  in  those  whose 
only  claim  to  respect  is  the  vileness  of  the  moral 
condition  from  which  they  profess  to  have  emerged. 

Finally,  this  distinction  between  morality  and  re- 
ligion is  not  found  in  the  Bible.  It  is  the  creation 
of  modern,  technical,  sectarian  theology.  It  came  in 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  inherent,  constitutional  cor- 
ruption of  human  nature,  which  supposes  the  soul  to 
be  alienated  from  God  from  the  very  first,  and  to  re- 
quire to  be  created  anew  by  a  fiat  of  his  omnipotence 
before  it  can  possess  the  faculties  which  are  neces- 
sary to  moral  probation,  the  freedom  to  choose  be- 
tween good  and  evil,  and  an  equal  disposition  tow- 
ards both. 

The  Bible  recognizes  no  such  ruin  and  corruption 
of  the  human  constitution.  It  regards  every  human 
soul  as  an  emanation  from  the  Divinity.  As  it  was  at 
first  his  workmanship,  so  it  is  never  forsaken  by  him. 


86  UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

It  is  by  his  continual  inspiration  that  it  has  under- 
standing. Conscience  is  nothing  other  than  his  voice 
speaking  in  the  soul  of  man.  The  moral  nature  of 
man  is  itself  a  revelation  of  God  and  his  will.  By 
it,  God  holds  continual  intercourse  with  all  mankind, 
and  puts  them  in  a  state  of  probation,  whether  they 
will  or  will  not  obey  his  voice  thus  speaking  within 
them.  This  moral  discipline  extends  to  the  lone 
savage  of  the  desert,  as  well  as  to  the  enlightened 
disciple  of  the  revelation  he  has  made  through  Jesus 
Christ. 

By  this  universal  law,  every  human  being  is  put  on 
probation  every  day  and  hour  of  his  life.  His  char- 
acter for  good  or  evil  is  forming  by  every  act  of 
obedience  or  of  disobedience  to  God's  law,  and  the 
future  condition  of  every  human  being  depends  on  his 
real  character.  There  is  every  grade  of  character, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  and  so  there  will  be 
every  grade  of  future  condition.  For  the  Scriptures 
assure  us,  that  u  every  man  shall  receive  according 
to  his  works,  whether  they  have  been  good  or  wheth- 
er they  have  been  evil."  "Whatsoever  a  man  sow- 
eth,  that  also  shall  he  reap."  There  is  no  intima- 
tion that  a  good  act  of  a  bad  man  will  any  more  fail 
of  its  reward,  than  a  bad  act  of  a  good  man  will  miss 
of  its  punishment. 

There  is  no  such  hair-splitting  about  motives  in 
the  Bible  as  has  been  introduced  by  modern  theolo- 
gians.    There  is  no  such  definition  of  goodness  as 


UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  87 

that  it  consists  of  actions  done  for  the  glory  of  God. 
The  glory  of  God  is  too  distant  and  abstruse  a  mo- 
tive for  the  common  mass  of  people  to  act  from. 
God  has  given  them  a  much  plainer  rule  of  conduct, 
whether  an  action  be  wrong  or  right.  Christ  has 
concentrated  the  whole  of  social,  religious  duty  in 
one  formula,  which  appeals  solely  to  man's  natural 
sense  of  justice  : —  "  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  ;  for  this  is 
the  law  and  the  prophets."  This  is  the  sum  and  es- 
sence of  religious  duty.  There  is  no  proviso,  that  it 
all  must  be  done  for  the  glory  of  God. 

Man  is  created  to  act  from  a  variety  of  motives. 
It  is  very  seldom  that  he  acts  from  one  alone.  They 
rise  in  moral  worth,  from  abject  fear  up  to  doing 
right  because  it  is  right,  which  is  the  highest  motive 
of  all.  The  moral  desert  of  an  action  depends  on 
the  predominance  of  one  class  of  motives  over  an- 
other. But  it  is  better  for  a  man  to  do  right  from  the 
lowest  motive,  than  to  do  wrong.  Every  motive  is 
appealed  to  in  the  Bible.  u  Honor  thy  father  and 
thy  mother,"  —  why? — "that  thy  days  may  be 
long."  "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of 
wisdom."  And  it  is  said  of  our  Saviour,  that  it  was 
for  "the  joy  set  before  him"  that  he  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shame.  "  Blessed  are  the  pure 
in  heart,"  —  why?  —  "  for  they  shall  see  God." 
"  Whatsoever  good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same 
shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord." 


88  UNITARIANISM   NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

Probation  for  eternity  is  confined  to  no  class. 
Every  human  being,  whether  he  be  called  saint  or 
sinner,  is  fixing  his  future  condition  by  what  he  is 
doing  every  day  of  his  life.  Heathen  and  Christian 
are  all  on  trial,  and  preparing  for  reward  or  punish- 
ment. "  God  will  render  to  every  man  according  to 
his  deeds ;  to  them  who,  by  patient  continuance  in 
well-doing,  seek  for  glory,  and  honor,  and  immortal- 
ity, eternal  life  ;  but  unto  them  that  are  contentious, 
and  obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  in- 
dignation and  wrath ;  tribulation  and  anguish  upon  ev- 
ery soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil,  of  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  of  the  Gentile  :  but  glory,  honor,  and  peace  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good;  to  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  to  the  Gentile  :  for  there  is  no  respect  of  per- 
sons with  God." 

There  is  no  distinction  here  made  between  moral- 
ity and  religion.  "  Glory,  honor,  and  peace  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  to  the  Gentile,"  must  include  all  mankind,  in  all 
their  actions,  and  u  good  "  is  that  which  is  pro- 
nounced to  be  good  by  the  law  written  on  the  heart. 
"  They  that  have  done  good  shall  come  forth  to  the 
resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  to 
the  resurrection  of  condemnation." 

An  outward  compliance  with  a  mere  ritual  religion 
may  become  the  most  dangerous  snare  to  which  a 
man  can  be  exposed.  The  observances  of  a  cere- 
monial religion  may  have  the  effect  to  lull  conscience 


UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  89 

to  sleep,  as  well  as  to  arouse  it  to  action  and  vigi- 
lance ;  and  the  most  gigantic  vices  of  heart  and  life 
may  grow  up  under  the  very  altars  of  God.  Christ 
quite  as  often  denounced  the  religionists  of  his  day  as 
he  did  the  careless  and  profane.  "  Woe  unto  you, 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  devour 
widows'  houses,  and  for  a  pretence  make  long  pray- 
er :  therefore  ye  shall  receive  the  greater  damnation. 
Woe  unto  you,  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  ! 
for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte, 
and  when  he  is  made,  ye  make  him  twofold  more  the 
child  of  hell  than  yourselves."  "  Woe  unto  you, 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  are  like 
whited  sepulchres,  which  indeed  appear  beautiful  out- 
ward, but  are  within  full  of  dead  men's  bones,  and  of 
all  uncleanness."  They  persecuted  Christ  for  break- 
ing the  Sabbath  by  healing  on  that  day,  and  so  great 
was  their  self-deception  that  they  did  it  with  murder 
in  their  hearts.  He  who  knew  men's  hearts  carried 
it  home  to  their  consciences  :  —  "  Ts  it  lawful  to  do 
good  on  the  Sabbath  days,  or  to  do  evil ;  to  save  life, 
or  to  destroy  it  ?  " 

The  most  awful  crimes  that  have  ever  been  com- 
mitted have  been  perpetrated  under  cover  of  relig- 
ion. Thus  it  was  that  Naboth  was  robbed  of  his 
vineyard  and  his  life  by  Jezebel,  the  wife  of  Ahab. 
"  I,"  said  she  to  her  husband,  "  will  give  thee  the 
vineyard  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite.  So  she  wrote 
letters  in   Ahab's  name,  and  sealed  them  with  his 


90  UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 

seal,  and  sent  the  letters  unto  the  elders  and  the  no- 
bles that  were  in  his  city,  dwelling  with  Naboth. 
And  she  wrote  in  the  letters,  saying,  Proclaim  a  fast, 
and  set  Naboth  on  high  among  the  people  ;  and  set 
two  men,  sons  of  Belial,  before  him,  to  bear  witness 
against  him,  saying,  thou  didst  blaspheme  God  and 
the  king.  And  then  carry  him  out  and  stone  him, 
that  he  may  die  "  !  This  was  to  be  done  at  a  pub- 
lic fast,  that  no  suspicion  might  be  fixed  on  those 
who  were  the  instigators  of  it  ! 

Religion  has  in  all  ages  been  liable  to  be  separated 
from  morality,  and  thus  made  to  degenerate  into  a 
dead  form,  petrifying  instead  of  softening  the  heart. 
It  was  so  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  He  was  sent  to 
the  Israelites  with  such  a  message  as  this  :  —  "  To 
what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto 
me  ?  saith  the  Lord.  I  am  full  of  the  burnt-offer- 
ings of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts  ;  and  I  de- 
light not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of 
he-goats.  When  ye  come  to  appear  before  me, 
who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand  to  tread  my 
courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  :  incense 
is  an  abomination  unto  me  ;  the  new  moons  and 
Sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away 
with  ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting. 
Your  new  moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul 
hateth  :  they  are  a  trouble  unto  me  ;  I  am  weary  to 
bear  them.  And  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands, 
I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you ;  yea,  when  ye  make 


UNITARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY.  91 

many  prayers  I  will  not  hear  :  your  hands  are  full  of 
blood.  Wash  ye,  make  you  clean  ;  put  away  the 
evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes  ;  cease  to 
do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ;  seek  judgment,  relieve  the 
oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow." 
The  Scriptures  are  full  of  such  representations. 
"  He  that  hath  my  commandments,"  saith  the  Sav- 
iour, M  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth 
me  ;  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my 
Father." 

These  are  the  doctrines  we  preach,  and  if  we  are 
condemned  for  preaching  mere  morality,  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  must  come  under  the  same  censure. 
No  man  ever  heard,  in  this  pulpit,  at  least,  morality 
separated  from  religion.  No  man  ever  heard  morality 
commended  upon  the  worldly  maxim,  that  honesty  is 
the  best  policy.  We  preach  religious  faith,  religious 
emotion,  religious  experience,  and  morality,  when 
based  upon  these  principles,  is  itself  religion. 

We  admit  that  we  place  integrity  at  the  foundation 
of  character,  moral  and  religious.  Without  it,  all 
pretensions  to  religion  become  as  sounding  brass  and 
a  tinkling  cymbal.  We  admit  that  we  are  especially 
careful  to  examine  the  moral  character  of  those  who 
make  the  greatest  religious  professions,  and  are  most 
given  to  turning  the  world  upside  down  to  make  con- 
verts to  godliness. 

And  may  the  worst  reproach  ever  brought  against 
us  be,  that  we  are  distinguished  among  mankind  for 


92 


UN1TARIANISM    NOT    MERE    MORALITY. 


the  strictest  moral  integrity.  We  profess  to  culti- 
vate the  most  spiritual  religion,  but  the  only  an- 
nouncement that  we  care  to  make  of  it  to  the  world 
is  by  the  fruit  of  a  Christian  life. 


DISCOURSE    V 


UNITARIANISM  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY. 

For  while  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and    another,  I   am 
or  Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  ?  —  1  Corinthians  iii.  4. 

I  am  this  evening  to  speak  to  you  of  the  epithet 
Evangelical,  as  arrogated  by  certain  classes  of  Chris- 
tians, and  denied  to  others.  I  wish  to  ascertain  its 
import,  and  the  propriety  of  its  application  to  some, 
and  its  denial  to  others,  who  claim  the  Christian 
name.  It  is  intended  to  intimate  the  idea  of  a  spe- 
cial purity  of  doctrine  and  sanctity  of  life  as  belonging 
to  those  who  claim  it.  Its  denial  is  intended  to  cast 
a  reproach  on  those  from  whom  it  is  withheld,  of  lax- 
ity of  doctrine,  and  a  life  less  scrupulously  exact. 

It  will  be  the  purpose  of  this  discourse  to  inquire, 
first,  What  are  the  pretensions  of  the  Evangelical 
Christians  ?  In  the  second  place,  Have  these  pre- 
tensions any  good  foundation  ?  And,  thirdly,  Who 
are  justly  entitled  to  the  name  of  Evangelical  Chris- 
tians ? 

As  it  happens,  we  have  the  means  at  hand  of  as- 
certaining what  are  the  pretensions  of  those  who  ar- 


94  TTNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

rogate  to  themselves  the  title  of  Evangelical  Chris- 
tians. Nearly  two  years  ago,  a  u  World's  Conven- 
tion "  was  held  in  London,  by  those  who  supposed 
themselves  to  be  especially  entitled  to  this  appella- 
tion, in  order  to  form  what  they  denominated  an 
"  Evangelical  Alliance. " 

After  a  session  of  a  fortnight,  they  published  the 
result  of  their  deliberations  in  the  following  resolu- 
tions and  articles  of  faith  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  this  conference,  composed  of 
professing  Christians  of  many  differing  denomina- 
tions, all  exercising  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
and,  through  common  infirmity,  differing  among 
themselves  in  the  views  they  entertain  on  some 
points,  both  of  Christian  doctrine  and  ecclesiastical 
polity,  and  gathered  together  from  many  and  remote 
parts  of  the  earth,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
Christian  union,  rejoice  in  making  the  avowal  of  the 
glorious  truth,  that  the  Church  of  the  living  God, 
while  it  admits  of  growth,  is  one  church,  never  hav- 
ing lost,  and  being  incapable  of  losing,  its  essential 
unity.  Not,  therefore,  to  create  that  unity,  but  to 
confess  it,  is  their  design  in  assembling  together. 
One  in  reality,  they  desire,  also,  as  far  as  they  may 
be  able  to  attain  it,  to  be  visibly  one,  and  thus  both 
to  realize  in  themselves,  and  to  exhibit  to  others,  that 
a  living  and  everlasting  union  binds  all  true  believers 
together  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
c  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all 
in  all.' 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.  95 

"  That  this  conference,  while  recognizing  the  es- 
sential unity  of  the  Christian  Church,  feel  constrained 
to  deplore  its  existing  divisions,  and  to  express  their 
deep  sense  of  the  sinfulness  involved  in  the  alienation 
of  affection  by  which  they  have  been  attended,  and 
of  the  manifold  evils  which  have  resulted  therefrom, 
and  to  avow  their  solemn  conviction  of  the  necessity 
and  duty  of  taking  measures,  in  humble  dependence 
on  the  Divine  blessing,  towards  attaining  a  state  of 
mind  and  feeling  more  in  accordance  with  the  word 
and  spirit  of  Christ  Jesus. 

"  That  therefore  the  members  of  this  conference 
are  deeply  convinced  of  the  desirableness  of  forming 
a  confederation  on  the  basis  of  great  Evangelical  prin- 
ciples held  in  common  by  them,  which  may  afford 
opportunity  to  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ  of 
cultivating  brotherly  love,  enjoying  Christian  inter- 
course, and  promoting  such  other  objects  as  they 
may  hereafter  agree  to  prosecute  together  ;  and  they 
hereby  proceed  to  form  such  a  confederation,  under 
the  name  of  '  the  Evangelical  Alliance.' 

"  That  with  a  view,  however,  of  furnishing  the 
most  satisfactory  explanation,  and  guarding  against 
misconception  in  regard  to  their  design  and  the 
means  of  its  attainment,  they  deem  it  expedient  ex- 
plicitly to  state  as  follows. 

"  That  the  parties  composing  the  Alliance  shall  be 
such  persons  only  as  hold  and  maintain  what  are  usu- 
ally understood  to  be  Evangelical  views  in  regard  to 
the  matters  of  doctrine  understated,  viz.  :  — 


96  TJNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

u  1.  The  Divine  inspiration,  authority,  and  suffi- 
ciency of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

"  2.  The  unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  the  trinity 
of  persons  therein. 

"  3.  The  utter  depravity  of  human  nature,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fall. 

"  4.  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  his 
work  of  atonement  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  and  his 
mediatorial  intercession  and  reign. 

"  5.   The  justification  of  the  sinner  by  faith  alone. 

"  6.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  of  the  sinner. 

"  7.  The  right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

"  8.  The  Divine  institution  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry, and  the  authority  and  perpetuity  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  9.  The  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  the  judgment  of  the  world  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  eternal  blessedness  of 
the  righteous,  and  the  eternal  punishment  of  the 
wicked." 

Such  are  the  principles  and  such  are  the  claims  of 
those  who  denominate  themselves  Evangelical,  or 
Gospel  Christians,  for  Evangelical  is  the  Greek  word 
for  Gospel. 

Let  us  now  analyze  these  claims  and  principles, 
and  see  to  what  they  amount. 

In  the  first  place,  it  appears  that  the  term  "  Evan- 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.  97 

gelical  "  is  sectarian  and  exclusive,  for  the  parties 
composing  the  Alliance  declare  that  it  shall  be  of  such 
persons  only  as  hold  and  maintain  what  are  usually- 
understood  to  be  Evangelical  views  in  regard  to  cer- 
tain doctrines.  Yet  they  profess  to  be  the  true 
church,  and  the  only  true  church.  "  They  rejoice 
in  making  their  unanimous  avowal  of  the  glorious 
truth,  that  the  Church  of  the  living  God  is  one  church. 
"  One  in  reality,  they  desire,  also,  as  far  as  they  may 
be  able  to  attain  it,  to  be  visibly  one,  and  thus  both  to 
realize  in  themselves,  and  to  exhibit  to  others,  that  a 
living  and  everlasting  union  binds  all  true  believers 
together  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  of  Christ." 

The  meaning  of  this  cannot  be  mistaken.  They 
wish  to  realize  in  themselves,  and  to  exhibit  to  others, 
that  a  living  and  everlasting  union  binds  all  true  be- 
lievers together  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Yet  they  acknowledge  that  they  differ  among  them- 
selves, and  belong  to  different  denominations,  for  the 
first  resolution  runs  in  this  way  :  —  u  Resolved, 
that  this  conference,  composed  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, of  different  denominations,  all  exercising  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  and,  through  common  in- 
firmity, differing  among  themselves  in  the  views  they 
severally  entertain  on  some  points  of  doctrine  and 
polity,"  &c. 

What,  then,  was  the  sum  and  substance  of  what 
was  done  by  the  World's  Convention  ?  The  repre- 
7 


98  UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

sentatives  of  several  small  fragments  of  the  Church 
Universal,  amounting  in  all  to  perhaps  one  sixteenth 
of  the  whole,  meet  together  and  resolve  that  the 
Church  of  the  living  God  is  one,  and  that  they  are 
that  one  true  church  ;  that  the  differences  of  opinion 
among  themselves  are  unimportant,  and  may  be  over- 
looked, while  the  differences  between  themselves 
and  the  rest  of  the  so-called  Christian  world  are  fun- 
damental, and  shut  out  all  else  from  the  fold  of  the 
true  believers. 

They  profess  to  be  Protestants,  and  lay  down  as 
the  fundamental  principles  of  their  association  the 
two  points  on  which  their  ancestors  separated  from 
the  Church  of  Rome,  —  "  The  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment."  But 
they  draw  up  nine  articles  of  alliance,  which  are  in- 
tended to  shut  out  from  their  body  for  ever  all  those, 
who,  in  the  exercise  of  their  private  judgment,  arrive 
at  different  conclusions  from  themselves,  and  which 
are  intended  to  bind  themselves  and  their  successors 
just  as  much  as  the  creed  of  Nice  or  Constantinople, 
or  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

They  came  together  to  promote  the  union  of  the 
Christian  Church,  but  pass  nine  articles  of  faith  which 
unchurch  and  excommunicate  fifteen  sixteenths,  or 
perhaps  nineteen  twentieths,  of  the  Christian  world. 
All  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  amputated  at  a 
blow.  All  the  Greek  Church  is  put  at  once  without 
the  pale.     The  article  on  the  utter  depravity  of  hu- 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.  99 

man  nature  closes  the  door  on  the  Arminian  portion 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  England,  and  the  liberal 
portion  of  the  Dissenters.  It  disowns  a  large  divis- 
ion of  every  Orthodox  church  throughout  the  world. 
The  article  on  the  Trinity  cuts  off  all  the  Unitarians 
of  the  continent  of  Europe,  a  large  and  increasing 
body,  all  "the  Unitarians  in  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  and  in  the  United  States.  The  article  upon 
the  eternity  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  ex- 
cludes all  the  Universalists  of  Germany,  (for  even 
the  most  orthodox  there,  on  other  points,  are  heret- 
ical on  this,)  and  all  embracing  the  same  tenets  in  the 
United  States. 

Narrowed  down  by  such  huge  subtractions,  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  becomes  one  of  the  most  insig- 
nificant, as  well  as  most  arrogant,  bodies  that  ever 
assembled  on  earth.  They  do  nothing  but  declare 
themselves  the  only  true  church,  and  then  adjourn, 
and  return  home  just  as  much  separated  and  divided 
as  ever,  and  resume  their  old  attitude  of  mutual  re- 
pulsion and  antagonism,  and  call  themselves  after  the 
names  of  Paul,  Apollos,  and  Cephas,  just  as  much 
as  ever. 

When  we  analyze  the  articles  of  confederation,  we 
find  that  Evangelical  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
Orthodox  under  a  new  name,  meaning  by  Orthodoxy 
that  which  has  been  such  since  the  Reformation,  which 
is  Calvinism  and  Trinitarianism,  the  doctrines  of  the 
tri-personality  of  God,  the  total   corruption  of  hu- 


100       UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

man  nature,  and  regeneration  by  exclusive  Divine 
agency. 

We  now  come  to  the  second  part  of  our  inquiry, 
the  propriety  of  the  assumption  of  the  title  of  Evan- 
gelical by  those  who  framed  the  nine  articles  of  con- 
federation. Evangelical,  we  have  already  said, 
means  Gospel.  Gospel  is  taken  for  the  Christian 
religion,  or  it  may  mean  the  teachings  of  Christ  re- 
corded by  the  Evangelists  in  the  four  Gospels,  con- 
trasted with  the  Epistles  and  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament. 

If  we  take  Evangelical  in  the  first  sense,  as  mean- 
ing the  whole  New  Testament,  the  New  Testament 
is  not  the  basis  of  the  alliance,  it  is  the  nine  articles, 
which  are  a  sectarian  interpretation  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Not  one  half  of  the  Christian  Church,  since 
the  beginning,  have  believed  that  the  Son  was  equal 
to  the  Father  ;  and  original  sin  and  justification  by 
faith  alone  have  met  with  a  very  partial  reception, 
even  in  those  churches  which  have  incorporated  them 
into  their  creeds.  The  "  Evangelical  Alliance," 
then,  is  not  the  proper  title  of  an  association  which 
does  not  found  their  union  upon  the  simple  New 
Testament  without  note  or  comment.  It  is  not 
Evangelical,  it  is  sectarian. 

Had  the  Alliance  confined  itself  to  the  first  and 
seventh  articles  of  their  confederation,  they  would 
have  been  truly  Evangelical  in  their  principles. 
They  are,   u  the  Divine  inspiration,  authority,  and 


TJNITAEIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.        101 

sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  and  u  the  right 
and  duty  of  private  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures."  They  would,  in  that  case,  have 
stood  upon  the  broad  basis  of  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment, the  whole  and  entire  Gospel,  as  it  addresses 
itself  to  every  human  mind. 

There  is  another  and  an  important  sense  of  the 
word  Evangelical,  or  Gospel,  as  signifying  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ  as  recorded  in  the  four  Evangelists,  in 
distinction  from  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 
This  distinction  is  broad  and  essential.  The  teach- 
ings of  Christ  stand  apart  and  far  above  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament.  To  him  the  spirit  was  given 
not  by  measure.  In  his  word,  the  whole  system  of 
the  Gospel  was  complete  and  perfect  from  the  first 
hour  of  his  teaching.  His  last  discourse  to  his  dis- 
ciples was  followed  by  a  prayer,  in  which  he  says, 
—  ' c  I  have  finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest  me 
to  do.  I  have  given  them  the  words  which  thou  gav- 
est me."  Speaking  of  himself  as  the  Messiah,  he 
says,  —  "  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh, 
that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou 
hast  given  him.  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  That  knowledge  he 
speaks  of  himself  as  having  imparted  to  his  disci- 
ples. They  were  qualified  to  be  his  apostles  by  the 
fact  of  having  been  the  eye  and  ear  witnesses  of  what 
he  had  done  and  what  he  had   taught.     The  Holy 


102       UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

Spirit  was  promised  them  that  they  might  "  bring  to 
remembrance  "  what  he  had  taught  them.  Future 
revelations  were  not  to  make  known  any  new  doc- 
trines, but  merely  to  explain  what  Christ  himself  had 
taught.  "  He  shall  take  of  mine  and  show  it  unto 
you."  The  Apostles  were  likewise  to  receive,  by 
Divine  communication,  knowledge  of  future  events. 
"  He  shall  show  you  things  to  come."  After  his 
resurrection,  he  commissioned  his  disciples,  —  u  Go 
and  teach  all  nations,"  u  teaching  them  to  observe 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  The  disciples, 
during  his  ministry,  had  a  very  imperfect  compre- 
hension of  his  religion,  and  light  dawned  very  grad- 
ually upon  their  minds.  It  was  nearly  ten  years  be- 
fore they  understood  the  extent  of  their  commission, 
that  they  were  commanded  to  preach  the  Gospel  lit- 
erally to  all  nations. 

The  Gospels  contain  Christianity  just  as  Christ 
preached  it,  expressed  in  general  principles  and  prop- 
ositions, addressed  to  universal  humanity.  The 
Epistles  are  the  same  truths  adapted  to  particular 
persons  and  circumstances,  and  are  enforced  by 
illustrations  and  modes  of  argument  which  were 
adapted  to  individuals  and  classes,  to  meet  their 
prejudices  and  conform  to  their  modes  of  speech. 
It  is  difficult  to  distinguish,  often,  which  is  the  truth 
and  which  is  the  illustration.  So  much  is  this  the 
case,  that  Peter,  in  one  of  his  Epistles,  speaks  of 
the  writings  of  Paul  as  obscure  and  difficult  to  be  un- 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.        103 

derstood,  and  liable  to  be  wrested  from  their  true 
meaning.  Such  writings,  surely,  ought  not  to  be 
put  on  a  level  with  the  Gospels. 

Paul  confessed  that  he  and  his  fellow-Apostles 
u  knew  but  in  part,  and  prophesied  but  in  part." 
The  knowledge  of  Christ  was  perfect.  "lam  the 
Way,  and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life  ;  no  man  cometh 
unto  the  Father  but  by  me."  "  The  law  was  given 
by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ." 
In  him,  the  word  or  revelation  of  God  became  incar- 
nate. u  The  word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us."  u  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the 
only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Fa- 
ther, he  hath  declared  him."  Paul  sometimes  gave 
his  own  personal  advice,  without  pretending  to  any 
Divine  illumination. 

For  these  reasons  the  Gospels  ought  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  Epistles,  and  placed  far  above 
them.  One  is  the  text,  and  the  other  the  commenta- 
ry. One  is  the  constitution,  and  the  other  the  his- 
tory of  its  administration.  One  is  the  fountain-head, 
the  other  the  streams  which  flow  from  it,  with  vari- 
ous admixtures. 

Now  how  do  the  Evangelical  doctrines,  as  they 
are  called,  stand  related  to  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  ? 
Calvin,  the  great  expositor  of  the  Evangelical  system 
in  modern  times,  while  he  was  a  minister  in  Geneva, 
preached  over  a  thousand  public  discourses.  How 
many,  think  you,  were  preached  from  a  text   in  the 


104        UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

Gospels  ?  Not  one  in  a  hundred,  and  the  greater  part 
from  the  Epistles.  Take  up  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, and  examine  the  proof-texts  of  the  article  on 
justification  by  faith,  and  you  will  find  that  forty- 
two  out  of  forty-three  are  from  other  parts  of  the  Bi- 
ble, and  only  one  from  the  Gospels.  Can  this  be 
considered  an  Evangelical  or  Gospel  doctrine,  when 
there  is  nothing,  with  the  exception  of  a  single  text, 
to  found  it  on  in  the  Gospels  ? 

Turn  to  the  article  on  original  sin,  and  you  will 
find  eighty-five  quotations  from  the  Scriptures  to  sus- 
tain it.  Out  of  the  eighty-five,  only  two  are  from 
the  Gospels.  Is  this  to  be  considered  an  Evangel- 
ical or  Gospel  doctrine,  when  only  two  out  of  eighty- 
five  texts,  which  are  imagined  to  sustain  it,  are  found 
in  the  Gospels,  and  most  of  them  are  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Paul  ?  Is  not  this  putting  the  disciple  above 
his  master  ?  Is  not  this  saying  u  I  am  of  Paul," 
rather  than  u  I  am  of  Christ  "  ?  Can  that  be  said  to 
be  Evangelical  doctrine,  which  finds  little  or  no  sup- 
port from  the  Evangelists  ?  Can  that  be  said  to  be 
Christian  doctrine,  concerning  which  Christ  taught 
nothing  ? 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  name  more  inappro- 
priate than  Evangelical,  as  applied,  first,  to  a  class 
of  Christians  who  make,  not  the  New  Testament, 
but  their  sectarian  deductions  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  basis  of  their  association  ;  and,  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  who  take  their  leading  doctrines,  not  from 


TJNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL   CHRISTIANITY.        105 

the  Gospels,  the  writings  of  the  four  Evangelists, 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  but  from  the  writings  of  Paul. 

Let  us  now  consider  whom  they  exclude  as  un- 
worthy of  the  name  Evangelical. 

In  the  first  place,  they  exclude,  particularly  and 
pointedly,  all  Unitarians.  Let  us  examine  the  jus- 
tice of  this. 

Unitarians  take  the  Bible,  particularly  the  New 
Testament,  as  their  only  creed.  They  take  the 
whole  Gospel  as  the  basis  of  their  association. 
They  do  not  extract  from  it  any  peculiar  sectarian 
interpretation,  and  lay  it  down  as  a  condition  of 
communion  with  them,  and  of  the  extension  to  oth- 
ers of  the  Christian  name  and  privileges.  They  re- 
ligiously abstain  from  any  such  act  as  the  formation  of 
a  written  creed.  Christ  and  his  Apostles  never  did 
any  such  thing.  Had  it  been  necessary  to  the  welfare 
of  the  Christian  Church  to  have  a  creed,  they  would 
have  instituted  one.  The  effect  of  creeds  from  the 
beginning  has  been,  not  to  unite,  but  to  divide,  the 
Christian  Church  ;  not  to  produce  harmony,  but  dis- 
sension. It  is  always  an  attempt  of  the  majority  to 
coerce  the  minority,  and  is  felt  by  that  minority  to  be 
an  enormous  oppression,  and  thus  occasions,  not  only 
dispute,  but  alienation  of  feeling,  which  is  more  anti- 
christian  than  any  mere  diversity  of  opinion.  Christ 
has  commanded  us  to  "  call  no  man  master,  for  one 
is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren." 
It  is  an  act  of  disrespect  to  Christ  to  interpose  be- 


106       UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

tween  him  and  those  whom  he  came  to  instruct, 
by  attempting  to  dictate  to  them  the  sense  in  which 
they  shall  receive  his  instructions.  There  will  al- 
ways be  great  diversities  of  opinion  among  men  on 
the  plainest  subjects.  You  can  never  find  two  per- 
sons who  give  the  same  account  of  a  discourse  to 
which  they  have  just  listened.  You  cannot  find  two 
Christians,  of  the  most  eminent  piety  and  intelli- 
gence, who  will  agree  in  their  opinions  on  the  most 
common  points  of  Christian  doctrine.  Subscription 
to  the  same  articles  does  not  create  a  uniformity  of 
belief.  If  it  does  not,  it  expresses  what  does  not 
exist,  it  is  insincere,  it  operates  to  disparage  and  ex- 
clude the  honest,  and  to  give  power  to  the  unscru- 
pulous and  ambitious. 

Another  reason  why  we  abstain  from  making  a 
creed  is  the  fact,  that  religious  knowledge  is  progres- 
sive. The  Gospel  continues  the  same,  but  our  un- 
derstanding of  it  may  be  improved.  There  is  no 
propriety  in  declaring  beforehand,  at  the  very  com- 
mencement of  our  studies,  to  what  conclusions  we 
shall  come.  It  is  equally  absurd  for  one  age  to  at- 
tempt to  dictate  the  religious  opinions  of  the  next. 

For  these  reasons,  the  Unitarians  as  a  body  have 
religiously  abstained  from  forming  a  creed.  We  as- 
sociate upon  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  alone,  without 
note  or  comment.  We  insist  upon,  and  carry  out  to 
the  letter,  u  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
right  of  private  judgment. "     We   claim,  therefore, 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.        107 

that  the  distinction  Evangelical,  or  Gospel,  Chris- 
tians belongs  preeminently  to  us. 

We  contend,  that,  in  forbearing  to  write  a  creed, 
we  are  the  true  and  consistent  advocates  of  union. 
All  creeds  are,  in  their  own  nature,  sectarian  and  dis- 
organizing. They  are,  in  the  first  place,  the  fruit 
of  sectarianism,  and  then  they  reproduce  sectarian- 
ism without  limit  and  without  end. 

Finally,  we  claim  to  be  Gospel  or  Evangelical 
Christians,  because  we  go  to  the  Gospels,  and  to  the 
Gospels  alone,  for  our  religion.  Christ  is  our  only 
Master,  our  only  infallible  Teacher.  No  doctrine  is 
received  by  us,  which  is  not  clearly  taught  in  the  four 
Evangelists.  Christ  taught  the  whole  of  his  own  re- 
ligion, in  its  true  form  and  relative  proportions.  The 
Acts  and  the  Epistles  contain  the  history  of  its 
administration  by  the  Apostles,  for  the  first  thirty 
years.  It  received  a  coloring  from  the  personal 
peculiarities  of  each,  and  was  shaped  to  suit  the 
circumstances,  to  meet  the  prejudices,  of  different 
communities.  Much  of  the  Epistles  is  taken  up 
in  discussing  questions  which  were  of  a  local  and 
temporary  character,  and  which  lost  their  interest 
and  their  application  in  after  ages,  when  the  circum- 
stances of  the  churches  changed.  Not  so  the  Gos- 
pels. They  are  addressed  to  man  as  man,  to  man 
in  the  nineteenth  century  as  well  as  in  the  first.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  addressed  to  the  Jews,  or 
rather  to  the  converts  to  Christianity  from  among  the 


108        UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

ancient  people  of  God,  and  is  filled  with  arguments 
and  modes  of  illustration,  which  might  be  striking 
and  conclusive  to  them,  but  not  so  to  a  person  who 
had  not  had  a  Jewish  education.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  is  an  attempt  to  reconcile  the  discordant 
elements  of  the  Christian  Church,  made  up  as  it  was 
of  converts  from  Paganism  and  Judaism,  and  to 
show  them  that  they  came  into  the  fold  of  Christ  up- 
on a  perfect  equality.  The  Epistles  to  the  Corin- 
thians are  intended  to  correct  the  abuses  which  had 
crept  into  that  church  in  the  absence  of  Paul,  and  to 
answer  inquiries  which  the  church  wished  to  make  of 
him  on  some  points  of  doctrine  or  duty. 

The  Gospels,  on  the  other  hand,  which  are  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  contain  the  abstract  essence  of 
Christianity,  and  are  addressed  to  universal  humani- 
ty ;  not  to  Jew  or  Gentile,  but  to  man,  —  to  his  moral 
and  religious  nature.  To  them,  therefore,  we  defer, 
on  them  we  rest  our  faith,  by  them  we  would  regu- 
late our  conduct,  on  them  we  repose  our  hopes,  and 
therefore  we  claim  to  be  regarded  as  preeminently 
Evangelical  Christians. 

There  is  another  pretension  put  forth  by  those 
who  style  themselves  Evangelical  Christians,  which 
it  is  proper  that  I  should  here  examine.  It  is,  that 
they  are  the  only  depositaries  of  divine  truth.  Be- 
longing to  the  Evangelical  body  is  equivalent  to  be- 
longing to  an  infallible  church.  The  chain  of  reason- 
ing by  which  this  pretension  is  sustained  is  something 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.        109 

like  this.  Human  nature  is  essentially  depraved, 
and  in  its  natural  state  has  no  discernment  of  spirit- 
ual things,  and,  of  course,  has  no  right  to  an  opinion 
upon  religious  subjects.  Part  of  mankind  are  regen- 
erated, and  created  anew  by  the  renovating  influen- 
ces of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Those  who  are  so  regen- 
erated uniformly  embrace  Evangelical  opinions.  One 
of  the  fruits  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart 
is  the  conviction  of  our  lost  and  undone  condition  by 
nature,  of  the  necessity  of  an  infinite  atonement  for 
sin,  and,  of  course,  of  a  trinity  of  infinite  persons 
to  enact  the  parts  required  in  the  scheme  of  the 
atonement.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  shortest  and  most 
effectual  way  to  the  establishment  of  an  exclusive 
and  infallible  church,  that  has  ever  been  devised. 

The  Romanists  have  a  similar  argument  for  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  their  church  in  religious  mat- 
ters. They  make  a  distinction  between  faith  and  be- 
lief. Belief  is  the  assent  which  any  human  mind 
gives  to  any  proposition,  upon  the  preponderance  of 
evidence  in  its  favor.  It  is  not  accompanied  by  cer- 
tainty. Faith,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  gift  of  God, 
and  confers  upon  him  to  whom  it  is  given,  not  only 
persuasion,  but  certainty.  This  faith  is  an  exclusive 
gift  to  all  true  Catholics,  and  by  it  they  are  made  to 
know  that  they  are  right.  What  the  Catholic  Church 
gains  by  an  exclusive  faith,  the  Evangelical  Church 
secures  by  an  exclusive  regeneration.  Both  arrogate 
to  themselves  a  monopoly  of  authority  in  religious 


110        UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

affairs.  Where  either  of  them  bears  sway,  they  are 
equally  disposed  to  make  the  same  use  of  their  pre- 
rogative, to  elevate  themselves  and  put  every  thing 
else  down.  The  divine  right  of  having  been  born 
again  is  found  just  as  available  for  the  purpose  of 
spiritual  domination,  as  the  divine  right  of  belonging 
to  the  only  true  Apostolic  and  indivisible  church. 

You  may  hear  the  supreme  Deity  of  Christ  es- 
tablished by  such  an  argument  as  this,  drawn  from 
Christian  experience.  Every  converted  soul,  when 
brought  under  the  conviction  of  sin,  has  felt  such  a 
weight  of  guilt  burdening  the  conscience,  that  noth- 
ing short  of  an  infinite  sacrifice  could  take  it  away  ; 
such  a  sense  of  weakness  and  helplessness,  that  noth- 
ing short  of  an  Almighty  Saviour  could  deliver  the 
sinner.  Thus  feeling  is  made  the  test  of  truth,  and 
whatever  a  converted  man  feels  to  be  true,  that  must 
be  assumed  to  be  fact. 

It  is  made  a  test  of  Christian  experience,  to  feel 
the  truth  of  the  Calvinistic  dogmas  of  total  depravity 
and  entire  inability.  He  who  has  never  felt  these 
has  no  pretensions  to  Christian  experience,  and,  of 
consequence,  his  suffrage  is  not  to  be  taken  in  mat- 
ters of  faith. 

I,  for  one,  protest  against  all  such  assumptions,  as 
the  worst  species  of  spiritual  oppression.  There  is 
not  a  sect  in  Christendom  which  may  not  in  the  same 
way  establish  its  claim  to  be  the  only  true  church, 
and  thus  excommunicate  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world. 


UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY.        Ill 

No  man  was  ever  more  sure  than  Wesley  of  his 
Christian  experience,  and  yet  no  man  was  ever  more 
firmly,  I  might  say  violently,  opposed  to  Calvinism. 
He,  however,  had  the  good  sense  and  the  charity 
not  to  make  any  exclusive  claim  to  piety.  The 
Baptist  makes  immersion  the  badge  of  the  true 
church,  and  denies  that  any  one  not  baptized  in  that 
way  has  even  the  promise  of  salvation.  The  Epis- 
copalian founds  his  claim  upon  the  only  true  Apos- 
tolical succession,  and  so  on  through  the  whole  list  of 
Christian  sects.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  these  con- 
flicting claims  mutually  destroy  each  other,  and  that 
of  the  Evangelical  Church  falls  with  the  rest. 

I  appeal  from  all  these  pretensions  to  the  Bible. 
I  deny  that  there  is  any  such  intellectual  test  of  dis- 
cipleship  to  Christ  in  the  Gospel,  as  assent  to  the 
dogmas  of  Athanasius  or  Calvin.  *  The  test  there 
proposed  is  a  plain  one,  that  of  Christian  character. 
"  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  "  He  that 
hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is 
that  loveth  me,  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved 
of  my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him  and  manifest 
myself  unto  him."  To  love  Christ  and  keep  his 
commandments  has  no  necessary  connection  with 
any  system  of  metaphysics  or  spiritual  philosophy. 
"  The  fruit  of  the  spirit  is  "  —  what  ?  belief  in  cer- 
tain theological  speculations  ? — no  ;  but  "  love,  joy, 
peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith, 
meekness,   temperance."     These  characteristics  of 


112        UNITARIANISM    EVANGELICAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

a  true  discipleship  to  Christ  are  not  confined  to  any- 
Christian  denomination.  The)T  are  exhibited  in  con- 
nection with  the  greatest  variety  of  speculative  be- 
lief, and,  in  fact,  have  very  little  to  do  with  modes 
of  faith. 

The  exclusive  pretensions  of  the  Evangelical 
Church  cannot  be  maintained.  There  is  a  growing 
desire  throughout  Christendom  for  some  better  basis 
of  union  than  has  ever  yet  been  proposed.  The 
World's  Convention  was  an  abortion,  because  it  was 
not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  That 
spirit  is  catholic.  The  Convention  was  sectarian. 
The  Church  is  to  be  made  one,  if  it  ever  can  be,  not 
upon  the  basis  of  the  creed  of  any  one  sect,  but  by 
adhering  only  to  those  great  and  cardinal  doctrines 
which  are  common  to  all. 


DISCOURSE    VI 


CJNITARIANISM  DOES  NOT  TEND  TO  UNBELIEF. 

And  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain, 
and  yocr  faith  is  also  vain.  —  1  Corinthians  xv.  14. 

The  subject  upon  which  I  am  to  address  you  this 
evening  is  the  alleged  tendency  of  Unitarianism  to 
unbelief.  Those  who  make  this  allegation  mean  by 
it,  that  a  Unitarian  is  more  liable  to  abandon  all  belief 
in  a  miraculous  revelation  than  a  Trinitarian,  and 
that  a  community  in  which  Unitarianism  is  the  pre- 
vailing faith  is  more  likely  to  become  infidel  than  a 
community  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
received.  This  question,  which  is  really  an  interest- 
ing one,  I  mean  to  meet  with  fairness  and  to  discuss 
with  candor. 

In  the  first  place  I  remark,  that  there  are  two 
classes  of  people  who  must  be  thrown  out  of  consid- 
eration in  discussing  this  subject,  —  those  who  never 
examine,  whose  faith  is  merely  traditionary,  and  those 
who  have  abandoned  religious  faith  from  moral  ob- 
liquity. A  person  who  is  a  Unitarian  or  a  Trinita- 
rian merely  because  his  father  and  mother  were  so 
8 


114      UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF. 

before  him,  or  because  it  was  taught  him  in  his  cat- 
echism, is  a  Unitarian  or  a  Trinitarian  merely  by  ac- 
cident. His  suffrage  is  not  to  be  taken  on  any  side, 
as  proving  the  truth  or  the  untruth  of  any  thing. 
His  own  jnind  has  not  been  exercised  upon  the  evi- 
dence. His  belief,  not  being  founded  on  evidence, 
neither  strengthens  nor  weakens  any  cause,  or  makes 
any  dogma  more  or  less  likelyao  be  true. 

So  the  unbelief  of  a  man,  who  has  been  made  so  by 
moral  causes,  is  not  to  be  taken  into  account.  Be- 
lief is  often  given  up  to  reconcile  the  convictions  of 
the  mind  to  the  tenor  of  the  life.  In  Christianity 
there  are  the  most  tremendous  moral  sanctions.  It 
denounces  "  the  wrath  of  God  against  all  ungodliness 
and  unrighteousness  of  men."  It  predicts  the  most 
appalling  consequences  as  the  inevitable  result  of  ev- 
ery deviation  from  the  law  of  rectitude  written  upon 
every  heart.  If  Christianity  be  true,  then  a  wicked 
life  is  the  worst  kind  of  suicide.  It  is  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  plunging,  coolly  and  deliberately,  soul 
and  body  into  hell.  No  rational  being  can  feel  com- 
fortably under  such  a  state  of  things,  and  the  only 
way  in  which  a  wicked  man  can  free  himself  for  a 
moment  from  a  perpetual  and  haunting  consciousness 
of  inevitable  perdition  is  to  call  in  question  the  truth 
of  Christianity.  His  objection  is  not  to  any  partic- 
ular form  of  Christianity,  but  he  wants  to  get  rid  of 
it  altogether.  He  catches  at  any  argument,  however 
flimsy,  which  seems  to  undermine  the  solidity  of  its 


UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF.       115 

foundations,  and  to  loosen  in  any  degree  the  obliga- 
tions and  responsibilities  which  its  truth  imposes. 
This  class  of  persons  I  place  wholly  out  of  view  in 
the  present  discussion.  I  speak  only  of  those  who 
are  honestly  seeking  for  truth,  and  whose  daily  life  is 
such  as  to  make  it  as  much  for  their  interest  that 
Christianity  should  be. true  as  false. 

The  question,  then»  which  we  are  to  discuss  is, 
whether  Christianity,  to  an  inquiring  mind,  is  as  cred- 
ible when  it  is  considered  as  teaching  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Calvinism  and  Trinitarianism,  as  it  is 
without  them,  and  considered  as  teaching  merely 
those  doctrines  which  Unitarians  find  in  it. 

It  is  usual  for  the  opponents  of  Unitarianism  to 
appeal  to  experience.  And,  appealing  to  experience, 
they  say,  and  it  has  passed  into  a  proverb,  that 
"  Unitarianism  is  the  half-way  house  to  infidelity." 
Once  begin  to  doubt  the  Trinity  and  the  doctrines 
of  grace,  as  they  are  called,  and  there  is  no  knowing 
when  you  will  stop.  Unitarianism  will  not  long  af- 
ford a  resting-place.  You  will  doubt  on,  and  give 
up  one  thing  after  another,  till  you  land  in  total  unbe- 
lief. The  history  of  individuals  is  pointed  out  as 
exemplifying  this.  Germany  is  spoken  of  as  a  dem- 
onstration of  this  fact.  So  convinced  are  some  por- 
tions of  the  Christian  Church  of  the  saving  power  of 
Trinitarianism  and  Calvinism  over  a  belief  in  the  Bi- 
ble, that  they  advocate  the  maintenance  and  enforce- 
ment of  a  written   creed,  in   which  these   doctrines 


116   UNITARIANISM  DOES  NOT  TEND  TO  UNBELIEF. 

are  incorporated,  in  order  to  sustain  and  preserve  a 
belief  in  the  Bible  itself.  Without  written  creeds, 
it  is  declared  to  be  impossible  to  keep  churches, 
first,  out  of  Unitarianism,  and,  finally,  out  of  total 
unbelief. 

I  deny  that  there  is  any  such  power  in  a  Trinita- 
rian and  Calvinistic  creed  to  keep  unbelief  out  of  the 
world.  The  Athanasian  creed,  certainly  did  not  keep 
unbelief  out  of  France  during  the  last  century  and  the 
present.  Nor  does  it  out  of  Italy.  The  three  creeds 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  have  not  kept  unbelief  out 
of  England,  nor  do  the  most  orthodox  creeds  in  this 
country  succeed  in  preventing  hundreds  and  thousands 
from  feeling  a  total  distrust  towards  the  whole  of 
Christianity,  under  the  very  pulpits  whence  Trinita- 
rianism  and  Calvinism  are  fulminated  every  Sunday. 

But  there  is  more  expressed  than  is  intended  in 
the  saying,  that  Unitarianism  is  the  half-way  house  to 
infidelity.  The  very  phraseology  shows,  that,  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  Unitarianism  has  not 
a  fair  chance  to  afford  rest  to  him  who  entertains 
it  under  such  conditions.  He  is  in  a  transition 
state  from  believing  too  much  to  believing  too  littte. 
He  has  acquired  too  much  momentum,  in  his  de- 
scent from  the  bleak  and  barren  regions  of  dogma- 
tism towards  the  dark  and  misty  fens  of  unbelief,  to 
stop  in  the  temperate,  vital,  and  genial  region  of 
truth,  which  is  equally  removed  from  both  extremes. 
Those  whose  moral  natures  revolt  from  the  awful  in- 


UNITAEIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF.       117 

justice  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  refuse  to  clothe 
the  Deity  in  the  gloomy  horrors  of  that  faith,  —  those 
whose  intellects  cannot  receive  the  dogma  of  the 
Trinity,  which  confounds  at  once  arithmetic  and 
mental  individuality,  —  have  generally  contracted  a 
prejudice  against  the  Bible  itself,  with  which,  in  their 
minds,  these  doctrines  have  been  identified.  It  re- 
quires time  and  labor  to  disentangle  these  associated 
ideas,  and  to  free  the  Scriptures  from  the  suspicion 
of  extravagance  and  contradiction,  which  the  detec- 
tion of  great  mistakes  first  casts  over  them.  There 
are  multitudes  who  have  reason  to  thank  God  that 
there  is  such  a  blessed  hajf-way  house  as  Unitarian- 
ism  between  dogmatism  and  unbelief ;  for  in  it  they 
have  found  rest  to  their  souls,  light  to  their  under- 
standings, a  firm  foundation  to  their  faith,  comfort  in 
life,  and  hope  in  death. 

But  this  very  saying,  that  Unitarianism  is  the  half- 
way house  to  infidelity,  though  intended  as  a  re- 
proach against  Unitarianism,  to  my  mind  contains  an 
admission  in  its  favor.  Its  very  structure  shows 
that  doubt  is  not  supposed  to  commence  when  the 
subject  of  it  is  in  Unitarianism,  but  in  a  state  of  Or- 
thodoxy. It  is  no  half-way  house  to  one  who  has 
never  been  Orthodox.  It  does  not  assert,  what 
would  not  be  true,  that  doubt  originates  in  the  state 
of  Unitarianism.  It  is  supposed  to  originate  when 
Christianity  is  identified  with  Calvinism  and  Trinita- 
rianism.     And  this  I  believe  to  be  the  case.     The 


118      TTNITARIANISM   DOES    NOT    TEND   TO   UNBELIEF. 

most  cultivated  minds  in  all  Orthodox  churches  lis- 
ten with  incredulity,  or  a  very  qualified  assent,  to  the 
dogmas  of  the  Trinity,  incarnation,  the  fall,  vicarious 
punishment,  &c,  &c.  The  famous  John  Foster, 
of  England,  long  ago  wrote  a  treatise  to  account  for 
the  aversion  of  men  of  taste  to  Evangelical  religion. 
He  might  have  cut  the  matter  short  by  saying,  that 
the  peculiar  dogmas  of  Evangelical  religion  are  in- 
consistent, unreasonable,  and  contradictory  to  the 
first  principles  of  morality  and  justice,  and  therefore 
in  themselves  improbable  ;  and,  as  such,  are  most 
likely  to  be  seen  to  be  so  by  the  most  enlightened 
and  cultivated  minds.  Ttav  are  confessed  to  be 
unreasonable,  and  their  credit  is  saved  by  saying 
that  they  are  above  reason,  or  mysteries,  and,  there- 
fore, that  reason  has  no  right  to  decide  against  them. 

But  let  us  analyze  this  matter,  and  see  if  there  be 
no  greater  objections  against  Christianity,  when  con- 
sidered as  teaching  Orthodoxy,  than  when  teaching 
simple  Unitarianism. 

What  are  the  objections  which  are  usually  brought 
against  the  credibility  of  a  miraculous  revelation  ? 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  objected  to  revelation  that  it 
is  not  universal.  If  it  is  necessary  to  man's  spiritual 
welfare,  a  good  and  impartial  God  would  have  im- 
parted it  to  all  mankind,  and  not  have  withheld  it 
from  any.  If  it  is  not  necessary,  then  he  would  not 
have  given  it  to  any.  This  is  the  strongest  objec- 
tion to  the  antecedent  probability  of  a  revelation.     I 


UNITARIANISM   DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF.       119 

do  not  say  that  it  is  unanswerable,  for  I  believe  that 
it  admits  of  an  answer.  But  it  lies  with  equal  force 
against  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism. 

The  second  grand  objection  to  the  credibility  of  a 
revelation  is  to  the  credibility  of  miracles,  by  which 
alone  revelation  can  be  given  and  authenticated. 
Hume  tells  us,  that  miracles  are  in  themselves  incred- 
ible, and  incapable  of  being  authenticated,  and  there- 
fore, instead  of  authenticating  a  revelation  to  which 
they  are  appended,  they  make  it  less  credible  than  it 
would  be  without  them.  This  argument  has  given  the 
defenders  of  revelation  much  trouble.  That  it  may 
be  satisfactorily  answered  I  have  no  doubt,  or  I  should 
not  continue  to  preach  a  religion  which  I  did  not  be- 
lieve. Paul,  in  our  text,  stakes  the  truth  of  Christian- 
ity on  a  miracle,  on  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  "If 
Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and 
your  faith  is  also  vain."  If  miracles  under  all  cir- 
cumstances are  incredible,  then  is  Christianity  incred- 
ible, for  it  is  founded  on  miracle.  But  the  objec- 
tion is  equally  strong  against  the  credibility  of  a  rev- 
elation, when  it  is  thought  to  teach  Trinitarianism  or 
Unitarianism. 

But  what  purports  to  be  a  revelation  may  be  more 
or  less  credible,  on  account  of  what  it  contains.  It 
may  be  consistent  in  its  parts,  and  it  may  be  incon- 
sistent. It  may  contain  representations  of  God 
which  are  agreeable  to  what  we  know  of  him  by  the 
light  of  nature,   or   it  may  contain  representations 


120     UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF. 

which  are  repugnant  to  them.  The  unity  of  God, 
for  instance,  is  a  probable  doctrine,  considered  as  a 
doctrine  of  revelation,  because  it  agrees  with  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe  ;  for  the  whole  universe 
bears  the  marks  of  being  the  work  of  one  mind,  of  one 
only  designing  and  superintending  cause.  There  is  an 
internal  probability  in  the  first  verse  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, —  "  In  the  beginning,  God  created  the  heav- 
ens and  the  earth."  The  human  mind  assents  to  it,  as 
not  only  sublime,  but  true.  It  corresponds  with  the 
intuitions  of  reason.  Such  an  expression  is  worthy 
of  a  Divine  revelation,  especially  when  we  consider  it 
as  addressed  to  a  world  of  idolaters,  who  worshipped 
the  various  parts  of  the  visible  universe  as  God. 

So,  when  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  and  read 
the  first  verse  of  John's  Gospel,  —  "In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God,"  —  if  we  interpret  the  phrase 
"  Word  "  to  mean  an  attribute  of  God,  that  God 
made  the  world  by  his  power  and  wisdom,  figurative- 
ly represented  as  his  word,  we  have  a  mere  repeti- 
tion, in  other  language,  of  the  assertion  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis. 

But  if  we  interpret  the  "  Word  "  to  mean  a  per- 
son, the  second  person  of  a  trinity,  then  we  intro- 
duce confusion  and  improbability  into  the  very  sub- 
ject-matter of  revelation  itself.  There  is  no  antece- 
dent probability,  that  God  should  exist  in  a  trinity. 
There  is  no  intimation  of  such  a  mode  of  existence 


UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF.      121 

in  reason  or  nature.  And  if  there  were  persons  in 
God,  there  is  no  reason,  or  intimation  in  nature  or 
reason,  that  those  persons  should  be  three,  rather 
than  four  or  five.  It  is  antecedently  improbable  that 
one  equal  person  of  a  trinity  should  use  the  agency 
of  another  equal  person  of  the  trinity  in  creating  the 
world.  But  those  who  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  assert  that  it  was  through  the  Son  that  the 
Father  created  the  world.  Such  a  doctrine  is  essen- 
tially improbable,  and  would  make  the  theology  of 
the  New  Testament,  not  an  improvement  upon  that 
of  the  Old,  but  a  corruption  of  it. 

Then  the  relations  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
to  each  other,  that  of  Father  and  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  proceeding  from  them  both,  makes  the 
Trinity  of  the  New  Testament  much  more  like  the 
mythology  of  the  heathen  than  the  pure  spirituality 
and  sublime  simplicity  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

It  is  true,  that,  to  my  mind,  and  those  of  all  Unita- 
rians, the  New  Testament  teaches  no  such  doctrine, 
but  teaches  the  same  unity  and  spirituality  of  the  De- 
ity which  pervade  the  Old  Testament.  But  did  it 
contain  such  a  doctrine  as  the  Trinity,  it  would  re- 
quire a  much  larger  amount  and  stronger  degree  of 
external  evidence  to  authenticate  such  a  revelation  as 
coming  from  God,  than  if  it  conformed  to  the  simple 
doctrine  of  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

Let  us  next  contrast  the  doctrines  of  inspiration 


122     UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF. 

and  incarnation  as  to  their  essential  probability. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  involves  the  doctrine 
of  incarnation.  And  what  is  the  doctrine  of  incar- 
nation ?  It  is,  that  the  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity, the  Son,  very  and  eternal  God,  a  being  inhabit- 
ing immensity  and  eternity,  descended  to  the  earth 
and  became  incarnate  in  the  body  of  an  unborn 
infant,  and  together  with  the  human  soul  of  that 
infant  made  one  person,  never  to  be  again  divid- 
ed, and  that  that  union  for  ever  subsists.  Omnipo- 
tence and  human  weakness  coalesced.  Omniscience 
was  united  to  the  mind  of  a  child,  who  grew  in  wis- 
dom and  in  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man. 
And  some  have  carried  the  idea  of  incarnation  so  far 
as  to  say,  that  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  died 
upon  the  cross,  and  all  affirm  that  the  connection  of 
the  Deity  with  the  soul  of  Christ  rendered  his  suffer- 
ings in .  the  hour  of  crucifixion  of  infinite  merit  to 
atone  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  I  venture  to  affirm, 
that  there  is  not  an  invention  in  all  heathen  mythol- 
ogy which  carries  with  it  stronger  internal  marks  of 
improbability  than  this.  It  will  not  bear  examination 
for  a  moment.  It  contradicts  all  the  most  essential 
Divine  attributes.  The  immutable  God  changed  his 
mode  of  existence,  and  lived  thirty-three  years  upon 
earth,  and  then  reascended  to  heaven.  God,  who  is 
incapable  of  suffering,  permitted  himself  to  be  taken, 
condemned,  and  crucified,  by  his  own  creatures. 
Reverence  is  as  much  shocked  as  reason  by  these 
propositions. 


UNITARIANISM  DOES  NOT  TEND  TO  UNBELIEF.   123 

Would  not  a  revelation  which  contained  such 
propositions  require  a  much  greater  amount  of  ex- 
ternal evidence  to  make  it  credible,  than  one  which 
maintained  unimpaired  the  integrity  of  the  Divine 
perfections,  not  to  say  the  dignity  of  the  Divine  char- 
acter ? 

The  Unitarian  believes,  as  much  as  the  Trinita- 
rian, all  that  is  related  concerning  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  much  believes  in  him  as 
the  Saviour  of  the  world.  But  he  believes  that  every 
thing  that  he  was  and  accomplished  may  be  as  well 
accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of  his  inspiration, 
that  God  clothed  him  with  his  power  and  filled  him 
with  his  wisdom,  as  that  the  second  person  of  a  trinity 
became  incarnate  in  him.  He  believes  that  that 
Scripture  was  literally  fulfilled  in  him  which  he  quoted 
in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  and  applied  to  himself, 

—  u  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he 
hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  poor  ;  he 

hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted This 

day  is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears."  And 
what   Peter  said  of  him   in  his  speech  to  Cornelius, 

—  "  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who  went  about  doing 
good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  Devil, 
for  God  was  with  him.'''     Or,  as  he  said  of  himself, 

—  "  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not 
of  myself ;  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth 
the  works."     Inspiration,  the  communication  of  su- 


124     UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF. 

pernatural  power  and  knowledge  to  Christ,  carries 
with  it  no  internal  marks  of  extravagance  and  im- 
probability. It  is  analogous  to  the  power  and  knowl- 
edge which  God  gives  to  every  man  by  the  natural 
exercise  of  his  faculties.  The  enlightenment  and 
spiritual  salvation  of  mankind  through  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth is  analogous  to  the  way  in  which  God  has  ad- 
vanced the  human  race  in  science,  learning,  and  civ- 
ilization, through  intellects  of  great  wisdom  and 
power,  which  he  has  raised  up,  apparently,  for  this 
especial  purpose. 

But  the  incarnation  of  God,  the  amalgamation  of 
an  Infinite  Spirit  with  a  finite  soul  into  one  person, 
the  birth,  the  human  life,  the  death,  burial,  resurrec- 
tion, and  ascension  of  God,  are  ideas  which  are  self- 
contradictory,  and  give  the  impress  of  extravagance 
to  any  system  of  theology  of  which  they  make  a  part. 
They  require,  therefore,  a  greater  amount  of  exter- 
nal evidence  to  prove  them  to  come  from  God,  than 
the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  Jesus. 

The  same  thing  holds  true  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
fall.  That  the  essential  constitution  of  human  nature 
was  changed  by  one  transgression  of  our  first  parents, 
so  that  their  offspring  come  into  the  world  incapable 
of  any  good,  and  capable  only  of  evil,  is  essentially 
incredible.  It  would  give  that  sin  a  nature  wholly 
different  from  any  other  sin  that  ever  was  committed. 
No  other  sin  that  ever  was  committed  had  the  same 
power  to  change  human  nature.     It  is  essentially  im- 


UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF.      125 

probable  that  this  sin  had  any  such  power.  It  could 
only  be  by  an  arbitrary  and  extraordinary  appoint- 
ment of  God. '  No  reason  can  be  given  why  he 
should  have  made  such  an  arbitrary  and  extraordinary 
appointment.  Not  only  is  it  improbable  on  that  ac- 
count, but  it  is  wholly  subversive  of  God's  moral  at- 
tributes. It  would  have  been  an  act  of  injustice,  in 
comparison  to  which  all  the  injustice  that  has  ever 
been  perpetrated  by  men  in  this  world  would  be  as  a 
drop  of  water  to  the  ocean,  as  the  small  dust  of  the 
balance  to  the  mighty  bulk  of  the  globe  itself.  That 
myriads  on  myriads  of  the  human  race  should  be  cast 
into  eternal  torment  for  a  sin  of  which  they  were  not 
only  innocent,  but  absolutely  ignorant,  is  a  doctrine 
more  improbable,  I  had  almost  said,  than  atheism  it- 
self, and  strips  the  Deity  of  all  the  attributes  which 
make  him  the  object  of  religious  regard  and  affection. 

If  we  interpret  the  Oriental  apologue  of  the  en- 
ticing serpent  and  the  forbidden  fruit,  of  the  manner 
in  which  moral  evil  first  came  into  the  world,  and 
always  comes  into  the  world,  —  as  the  result  of  hu- 
man freedom  and  frailty  surrounded, with  temptation, 
—  then  it  conveys  a  great  moral  truth,  which  is  con- 
sistent with  the  equity  of  the  Divine  government,  and 
holds  a  proper  place  in  the  introduction  to  the  moral 
and  religious  history  of  our  race. 

Just  so  it  is  with  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  punish- 
ment. The  dogma,  that  Christ,  during  the  agony  of 
his  crucifixion,  suffered  the  punishment  that  was  mer- 


126       UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF. 

ited  by  the  sins  of  the  whole  human  race,  or  even 
the  elect,  carries  with  it  the  essential  features  of  ex- 
travagance and  improbability.  That,  without  such 
suffering  endured  by  him,  God  never  could  have  for- 
given the  penitent,  limits  the  power  of  the  Omnip- 
otent, and  gives  the  idea  of  helpless  imbecility  and 
unskilfulness  to  the  Perfect  Ruler  of  the  universe. 
But  that  he  should  have  suffered  death  in  conse- 
quence of  his  preaching  a  Gospel  of  humility,  holi- 
ness, and  self-denial,  to  a  proud,  worldly,  and  sensual 
generation,  is  perfectly  credible,  and  that  God  should 
have  overruled  his  death  to  the  establishment  of  his 
religion  and  the  demonstration  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  It  is  perfectly  analogous  to  other  arrange- 
ments by  which  he  brings  good  out  of  evil. 

How  can  it  possibly  be  said,  then,  with  any  pre- 
tension to  fairness,  that  the  adoption  of  Unitarian  prin- 
ciples tends  to  unbelief,  when  every  article  of  faith 
which  Unitarianism  discards  is  in  itself  unreasonable, 
incredible,  and  therefore  improbable  ?  How  can  it 
be  said,  that  Unitarianism  tends  to  unbelief,  when  its 
articles  of  faith  are  in  themselves  more  reasonable 
and  more  analogous  to  the  course  of  nature  and  the 
acknowledged  principles  of  the  Divine  government, 
than  the  system  to  which  they  are  opposed  ?  I 
know  of  no  principle  upon  which  this  can  be  af- 
firmed, unless  it  be  this,  —  that  the  shortest  way  to 
belief  is  to  adopt  some  article  of  faith  into  the  creed 
by  which  reason  is  wholly  prostrated,  confounded, 


UN1TARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF.       127 

and  silenced,  and  then  any  thing  may  be  admitted  in- 
to the  mind  without  question  or  examination. 

I  deny  that  there  are  more  skeptics  under  Unita- 
rian than  Orthodox  preaching.  On  the  contrary,  I  af- 
firm that  the  most  frequent  cause  of  unbelief,  the  great 
reason  why  the  lofty  teaching  of  the  Saviour  is  re- 
jected, or  listened  to  with  apathy  and  indifference  in 
Christian  congregations,  is  the  unreasonable,  unjust, 
and  contradictory  doctrines  which  are  interpolated 
into  Christianity,  and  are  made  to.  supersede  and 
hide  from  view  the  sublime  and  rational  teaching  of 
Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

The  human  mind  does  not  revolt  at  the  fact  as  in- 
credible, that  God  has  made  a  revelation  to  man,  but 
it  does  listen  with  incredulity  to  doctrines,  as  coming 
from  revelation,  which  are  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves, and  wholly  irreconcilable  with  what  God  has 
already  taught  us  through  nature  and  reason,  con- 
sciousness and  experience.  It  is  not  the  simple 
fact,  that  God  has  sent  Jesus  to  be  the  Light  of  the 
world,  the  Ambassador  of  his  mercy,  the  Pattern 
of  a  perfect  life,  the  Vanquisher  of  death,  and  the 
Pledge  of  immortality  to  man,  that  fills  the  mind  with 
perplexity  and  the  heart  with  distrust.  It  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  confounding  at  once  arithmetic 
and  reason  ;  the  doctrine  of  incarnation,  by  which 
the  wildest  fancies  of  heathen  mythology  are  sur- 
passed ;  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  which  covers  the 
Divine  administration  with  the  ignominy  of  defeat  at 


128   UNITARIANISM  DOES  NOT  TEND  TO  UNBELIEF. 

its  very  inception  ;  the  doctrine  of  human  inability, 
by  which  the  sense  of  accountability,  the  very  key- 
stone of  the  arch  of  religion,  is  taken  out  ;  the  doc- 
trine of  arbitrary  and  unconditional  election,  and 
eternal  torments  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  —  these  are 
the  doctrines  that  spread  the  paralysis  of  unbelief 
over  the  world,  and  neutralize  the  benign  influence 
of  the  blessed  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  may  be  objected  to  all  this,  I  am  aware,  by  the 
opponent  of  Unitafianism,  that  it  is  mere  speculation. 
Facts  are  altogether  on  the  other  side.  Germany  is 
often  quoted  as  an  instance  of  a  whole  people  declin- 
ing, first  into  Unitarianism,  and  then  into  total  unbe- 
lief. Unitarian  clergymen  have  given  up  belief  in 
Christianity,  and  finally  abandoned  their  profession, 
in  this  country.  I  answer,  that  not  a  greater  number 
of  Unitarian  clergymen  have  forsaken  their  calling 
than  of  those  of  other  modes  of  faith.  It  is  greatly 
to  be  feared,  that  unbelief  is  not  confined  to  the  cler- 
gy of  any  denomination,  as  nothing  but  unbelief  can 
explain  the  awful  depravity  and  the  appalling  crimes 
which  have  been  revealed  to  the  world  in  the  con- 
duct of  those  who  minister  in  holy  things,  within  a 
(ew  years  past,  in  all  the  different  communions.  In 
charity  we  must  suppose  that  those  who  have  exhib- 
ited such  hardened  guilt  had  no  serious  belief  in  the 
truth  of  the  religion  which  it  was  their  profession  to 
teach. 

But  it  may  be  said,  and  is  often  said,  as  a  dispar- 


UNITARIANISM   DOES    NOT    TEND    TO    UNBELIEF.       129 

agement  to  Unitarianism,  that  in  the  places  where  it 
originated,  and  where  it  most  prevails,  there  are 
weekly  assemblies  of  persons  who  listen  to  men 
who  were  once  Unitarian  clergymen,  but  wTho  now 
preach  pure  deism,  who  regard  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
as  a  Jewish  philosopher  who  was  greatly  in  advance 
of  his  age,  but  whose  doctrines  have  no  other  author- 
ity than  that  of  being  his  opinions  on  matters  of  mor- 
als and  religion. 

This  is  triumphantly  pointed  out  as  conclusively 
showing  the  tendency  of  Unitarianism.  This  is  just 
what  the  Orthodox  have  always  predicted  as  the  re- 
sult of  any  departure  from  the  old  landmarks  of  the 
Trinitarian  faith.  How  can  you  explain  this  fact,  it 
is  said,  without  admitting  the  deistic  tendencies  of 
Unitarianism  ? 

I  answer,  that  we  cannot  have  the  benefits  of  con- 
sistent Protestantism,  which  is  entire  freedom  of  re- 
ligious opinion  and  profession,  without  taking  along 
with  it  its  incidental  evils.  Where  there  is  freedom 
of  opinion,  there  will  be  occasional  extravagance. 
And  there  is  no  other  way  of  determining  whether 
an  opinion  is  extravagant  or  not,  except  by  submit- 
ting it  to  the  general  judgment  of  mankind.  That  is 
the  last  resort,  that  is  the  final  appeal.  The  ex 
parte  judgment  of  existing  Orthodoxy  is  not  to  be 
taken  for  the  exponent  of  the  decision  of  universal 
reason.  We  must  have  that  decision,  sooner  or 
later,  and  the  sooner  we  get  it  the  sooner  we  shall 
9 


130      UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT   TEND    TO    UNBELIEF. 

have  peace  and  rest.  There  is  no  way  to  get  this 
verdict,  except  by  entire  freedom  of  opinion  and  pro- 
fession. 

I  answer,  in  the  second  place,  that  religious  opin- 
ions are  now  in  a  transition  state  all  over  the  world. 
In  times  of  revolution,  there  are  always  some  who 
are  disposed  to  carry  things  to  extremes.  Religious 
opinions,  even  in  Protestant  countries,  have  been 
matters  of  tradition  and  authority.  Religious  opin- 
ion is  now  passing  over  from  passive  tradition  to  indi- 
vidual conviction.  In  such  a  process,  much,  of 
course,  must  be  discarded.  It  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  every  man  will  know  precisely  where  to  stop. 
Some,  in  repudiating  what  is  false,  will  be  in  danger 
of  rejecting  what  is  true.  In  weeding  out  the  tares, 
some  of  the  wheat  may  chance  to  be  rooted  up. 

But  every  position  must  be  tried,  in  order  to  find 
out  what  is  tenable.  The  investigation  of  truth  is 
often  like  an  algebraic  process.  A  false  quantity 
must  be  assumed,  in  order  to  discover  the  true  one. 
Even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  Unitarianism  leads 
the  mind,  in  some  cases,  to  infidelity,  there  is  no  dan- 
ger that  it  will  stay  there,  unless  infidelity  be  true. 
If  infidelity  be  false,  and  Unitarianism  be  true,  the 
mind  will  come  back  to  Unitarianism.  If  Unitarian- 
ism is  not  infidelity,  it  will  be  shown  that  it  is  not. 
And  the  transition  of  a  few  bold  speculators  into  in- 
fidelity will  not  destroy  Unitarianism  or  Christianity, 
but  only  define  Unitarianism  on  the  side  next  to  un- 


UNITARIANISM  DOES  NOT  TEND  TO  UNBELIEF.   131 

belief.  The  discussions  of  the  last  thirty  years  have 
defined  Unitarianism  on  the  side  next  to  Orthodoxy. 
The  shading  off  of  a  few  cloudy  thinkers  into  unbe- 
lief will  lead  to  the  discovery  of  the  line  where 
Christianity  ends  and  infidelity  begins.  Books  will 
be  written,  which  will  clearly  show  what  is  essential 
to  Christianity  and  what  is  not.  New  treatises  on 
the  evidences  will  be  composed,  bringing  out  argu- 
ments on  points  which  are  now  assailed  for  the  first 
time,  and  adapted  to  the  present  phases  of  unbelief. 
When  this  is  done,  Christianity  will  stand  stronger 
than  ever. 

In  conclusion,  I  say  that  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  tendencies,  but  only  with  truth.  It  is  presump- 
tuous in  us  to  stop  to  inquire  whether  truth  will  have 
a  bad  or  good  tendency.  All  truth  must  have  a 
good  tendency,  or  the  world  is  based  on  falsehood. 
The  only  evil  effect  which  truth  can  occasion  in  the 
world  is  temporary,  and  will  be  caused  by  the  jar 
and  disturbance  that  are  produced  in  displacing  error. 
In  that  sense  Christianity  itself  came,  not  to  intro- 
duce peace,  but  a  sword. 

The  administration  of  Christianity  itself  has  always 
been  partly  polemical.  It  has  always  consisted  in 
the  maintenance  of  truth,  as  well  as  the  inculcation 
of  goodness.  The  writings  of  the  Apostles  are,  in 
no  small  degree,  controversial.  As  long  as  man  is 
fallible,  he  will  always  be  liable  to  wander  away  from 
the  truth,  even  after  it  has  been  discovered.     Every 


132      UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO    UNBELIEF. 

age  has  its  errors,  which  those  who  are  set  for  the 
defence  of  the  Gospel  are  obliged  to  combat.  There 
is  no  discharge  in  that  war,  and  it  will  never  cease,  to 
the  end  of  time.  If  Unitarianism  is  Christianity,  it 
will  be  shown  to  be  so,  and  the  Christian  Church  will 
become  Unitarian.  If  it  is  not,  it  will  be  proved  not 
to  be,  and  Unitarianism  will  be  abandoned.  But  the 
Christian  Church  will  survive,  for  "it  is  founded 
on  a  rock,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it." 

An  organized  opposition,  it  is  said,  is  no  disadvan- 
tage to  any  cause.  It  keeps  it  healthy  and  strong. 
It  arms  it  with  the  best  arguments,  and  compels  it  to 
lop  off  all  doctrines  which  are  indefensible.  Chris- 
tianity itself  is,  perhaps,  not  exempted  from  this  law. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  the  power  which  the 
Church  early  acquired,  of  putting  down  and  silencing 
all  opposition  and  dissent,  which  caused  its  doctrines 
to  become  so  corrupted,  and  its  usages  so  immoral. 
An  organized  deism  may  perhaps  do  Christianity 
good.  If  it  have  the  power  to  set  up  an  opposition 
to  Christianity  on  its  own  ground,  it  may  be  no  argu- 
ment that  Christianity  is  not  true,  but  only  that  it  is 
not  properly  administered.  It  is  encumbered,  per- 
haps, with  errors  which  the  age  will  not  bear,  and 
which  it  is  necessary  to  prune  away.  It  may  be  too 
limited  in  the  range  of  its  topics,  or  too  technical  and 
formal  in  the  mode  of  their  treatment.  Its  intellect- 
ual and  literary  culture  may  be  behind  the  age.     De- 


UNITARIANISM    DOES    NOT    TEND   TO   UNBELIEF.       133 

ism  can  obtain  a  partial  and  a  temporary  success, 
only  by  cultivating  those  excellences  which  Chris- 
tianity has  neglected.  Deism,  then,  may  be  made 
the  instrument  of  driving  the  Christian  Church  into 
purity  of  doctrine  and  wisdom  of  administration. 
That  it  is  weak  in  itself  cannot  be  better  shown  than 
by  its  professing  to  be  Christianity,  adopting  its 
forms,  and  imitating  its  great  institutions,  by  which 
the  world  has  been  enlightened,  refined,  and  sanc- 
tified. 


DISCOURSE    VII 


DOCTOR  WATTS  A  UNITARIAN. 

Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures.  —  Matthew  xxii.  29. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  discourse,  according  to  the 
announcement  of  last  Sunday  evening,  to  lay  before 
you  the  evidence  which  has  convinced  my  own  mind 
that  Doctor  Watts,  the  author  of  a  poetical  version 
of  the  Psalms  of  David  and  a  great  number  of 
hymns  for  public  worship,  which  have  been  so 
widely  used,  and  done  so  much  to  uphold  and  per- 
petuate the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  was  led  by  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures  to  renounce  that  doctrine, 
and  died  a  Unitarian.  I  do  not  pretend  to  form  your 
conclusions  on  this  subject,  but  only  candidly  state  to 
you  the  reasons  of  my  own. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  say  that  Unitarianism  is  true, 
and  Trinitarianism  false.  Truth  cannot  be  decided 
by  counting  suffrages,  or  appealing  to  distinguished 
names.  I  bring  it  forward  as  a  curious  and  impres- 
sive fact,  that  one  who  had  done  so  much  to  propa- 
gate the  Trinitarian  faith  should  have  died  a  Unita- 


DOCTOR    WATTS   A   UNITARIAN.  135 

rian  at  last.  I  advert  to  his  conversion  as  the  nat- 
ural process  of  an  inquiring,  honest  mind,  when  it 
comes  to  examine  the  Scriptural  evidence  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  those  intrinsic  and  essential 
difficulties  which  it  encounters  when  investigated  in  its 
own  pure  and  abstract  elements.  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  evident  reluctance  with  which  he  gave 
up  his  old  ideas,  and  embraced  the  very  views,  or 
others  still  more  Unitarian,  which  he  so  pathetically 
laments  as  having  been  embraced  and  promulgated  by 
the  great  John  Locke,  who  was  his  contemporary  for 
a  part  of  his  life. 

Doctor  Watts  was  born  in  Southampton,  Eng- 
land, 17  July,  1674.  His  father  was  a  respectable 
citizen  of  that  place,  belonging  to  a  congregation  of 
Dissenters.  He  had  a  religious  education,  and  early 
discovered  a  literary  turn,  which  was  gratified  by  op- 
portunities for  classical  culture,  and  finally  by  a  the- 
ological education  at  a  divinity  school  in  London, 
maintained  by  the  Dissenters.  His  progress  here 
was  rapid,  and  at  the  age  of  twenty-four  he  became 
the  clergyman  of  a  congregation  in  Mark  Lane, 
which  afterwards  built  a  chapel  in  Berry  Street. 
The  chapel,  which,  it  is  said,  no  one  would  take  to 
be  a  church,  is  now  exhibited  as  one  of  the  curios- 
ities of  London. 

He  had  early  exhibited  poetic  genius,  and  it  soon 
found  exercise  in  the  composition  of  hymns  for  pub- 
lic worship.     For  this   species   of  composition,  his 


136  DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

talents  were  especially  adapted.  His  warm  piety  and 
lively  imagination  gave  him  ready  access  to  all  who 
cherished  devotional  sentiments,  and  this  number  is 
always  greater  than  that  of  those  who  lead  a  consist- 
ent Christian  life. 

Watts  was  educated  a  Calvinist  of  the  strongest 
stamp,  and  a  Trinitarian.  These  sentiments  are 
woven  into  all  his  psalms  and  hymns.  David  is 
made  a  Trinitarian,  though  this  doctrine  was  not 
broached  till  thirteen  hundred  years  after  his  death, 
and  he  is  made  to  discourse  Calvinism  in  almost 
every  page.  But  Doctor  Watts  felt  himself  justified 
in  putting  Trinitarianism  into  the  Psalms  on  his  own 
account.  He  did  what  was  still  more  objectionable, 
though  perfectly  conscientiously  at  the  time.  The 
last  three  Psalms  are  mere  doxologies,  forms  of 
praise  to  God  which  were  long  used  for  that  purpose 
by  the  Jews.  But  it  is  to  one  God,  and  there  is  in 
them  no  hint  of  any  plurality  of  persons  in  the  De- 
ity. He  versified  them,  but  added  what  he  calls  the 
Christian  doxology,  with  this  note  :  —  "  Since  the 
Christian  doxology  is  more  used  in  Christian  church- 
es, I  have  added  that  also." 

"  To  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
And  God  the  Spirit,  three  in  one,"  &c. 

This  he  varied  in  all  the  different  metres,  that 
it  might  be  fitted  on  to  all  the  Psalms  of  David, 
who  lived  and  died  as  profoundly  ignorant  of  the 
doctrine  of  the   Trinity  as  he  was  of  the  continent 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  137 

of  America.  And  what  was  the  Christian  doxol- 
ogy  ?  Any  thing  found  in  the  New  Testament  ? 
By  no  means.  It  was  this,  —  "  Glory  to  the  Fa- 
ther, and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  —  and 
was  a  sectarian  doxology  framed  by  the  Athanasians 
to  drive  the  Arians  out  of  the  churches.  And  from 
Watts's  day  to  this,  the  Psalms  of  David  have  been 
sung  in  the  churches  with  this  unauthorized  and  un- 
scriptural  appendage.  His  versification  of  this  secta- 
rian doxology,  repeated  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  as 
if  of  Divine  authority,  has  done  more  to  perpetuate 
the  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  than  all 
the  books  of  controversial  divinity  that  were  ever 
written.  There  is  no  sentiment  whatever  that  might 
not  thus  be  inculcated  and  perpetuated.  What  Doc- 
tor Watts  afterwards  thought  of  the  Scriptural  au- 
thority for  these  things,  we  shall  see  in  the  course  of 
this  examination. 

He  published  his  Hymns  in  the  year  1707,  at  the 
age  of  thirty-three.  His  version  of  the  Psalms  was 
published  twelve  years  later,  in  1719.  His  first 
publication  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  bears  the 
date  1722,  three  years  after  the  publication  of  his 
version  of  the  Psalms. 

In  his  Hymns,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  stated 
in  the  most  obnoxious  form  :  — 

"  This  infant  is  the  mighty  God, 
Come  to  be  suckled  and  adored, 
The  Eternal  Father,  Prince  of  Peace, 
The  Son  of  David,  and  his  Lord." 


138  DOCTOR   WATTS   A    UNITARIAN. 

"  Here  at  the  cross,  my  dying  God, 
I  lay  my  soul  beneath  thy  love." 

"  Now  by  the  bowels  of  my  God, 

His  sharp  distress,  his  sore  complaints, 
By  his  last  groans,  his  dying  blood, 
I  charge  my  soul  to  love  the  saints." 

Here  the  birth,  the  suckling,  and  death  of  God  are 
spoken  of  as  fixed,  familiar,  and  common  ideas. 

I  have  said  that  Doctor  Watts  began  to  publish 
his  investigations  into  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
the  year  1722.  This  date  is  important,  as  it  fixes 
the  period  of  his  studies  upon  this  subject,  in  which 
his  opinions  were  formed  and  developed,  to  have 
been  between  the  fortieth  and  fiftieth  years  of  his  age, 
in  the  very  meridian  of  life.  I  am  careful  to  make 
this  statement,  because  it  is  said  by  those  who  wish 
to  take  from  the  authority  of  Watts's  suffrage  to  Uni- 
tarian opinions,  that  he  adopted  them  at  a  late  period 
of  life,  after  his  mind  had  become  enfeebled  by  age 
and  sickness.  I  here  read  the  testimony  of  his  per- 
sonal friend,  Dr.  Gibbons,  that  no  such  obscuration 
of  his  faculties  ever  took  place. 

"  How  it  came  to  pass  I  know  not,  but  that  it  has 
so  happened  is  certain,  that  reports  have  been  raised, 
propagated,  and  currently  believed  concerning  the 
Doctor,  that  he  has  imagined  such  things  concerning 
himself  as  would  prove,  if  they  were  true,  that  he 
lost  possession  of  himself,  or  suffered  a  momentary 
eclipse  of  his  intellectual  faculties  ;  and  I  could  refer 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN.  139 

my  reader  to  a  biographer  who  gives  the  world  a 
grave  narrative  of  the  particulars  of  these  wild  rev- 
eries. But  I  take  upon  me,  and  feel  myself  happy 
to  aver,  that  these  reports  were  utterly  and  absolute- 
ly false  and  groundless  ;  and  I  do  this  from  my  own 
knowledge  and  observation  of  him  for  several  years, 
and  some  of  them  the  years  of  his  decay,  when  he 
was  at  the  weakest  ;  from  the  express  declaration  of 
Mr.  Joseph  Parker,  his  amanuensis  for  above  twen- 
ty years,  and  who  was  in  a  manner  ever  with  him  ; 
and,  above  all,  from  that  of  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Abney, 
the  surviving  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  and  Lady  Ab- 
ney, who  lived  in  the  same  family  with  him  all  the 
time  of  the  Doctor's  residence  there,  a  period  of  no 
less  than  thirty-six  years.  Can  any  evidence  be 
more  convincing  and  decisive  ?  " 

His  investigations  into  the  Scriptures  and  the  an- 
cient Hebrew  writings  led  him  gradually  to  abandon 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  conclude 
that  the  places  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  it  is 
mentioned  as  a  person  are  personifications,  and  not 
descriptions  of  a  real  person.  To  the  same  conclu- 
sion he  came  as  to  the  personality  of  the  Word, 
which  he  thought  to  be  apoioer  of  God.  Thus,  in  his 
mind,  God  became  one,  by  the  gradual  evanescence 
of  what  in  his  education  he  had  learned  to  consider 
as  the  second  and  third  persons  of  the  Trinity. 
Hence  it  was  that  the  Trinitarians  complained  that  he 
reduced  the  Trinity  to  a  trinity  of  names. 


140 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN. 


"  Thus  it  appears,"  says  Doctor  Watts,  in  one 
of  his  treatises,  "  that  as  outward  speech  and  breath 
are  powers  of  the  human  body,  as  reason  and  vital 
activity  or  efficience  are  powers  of  the  human  soul,  so 
the  great  God,  in  Scripture,  has  revealed  himself  to  us 
as  a  glorious  being,  who  has  two  eternal,  essential,  di- 
vine powers,  wThich,  in  condescension  to  our  weakness, 
he  is  pleased  to  describe  by  way  of  analogy  to  our  souls 
and  bodies  ;  and  this  he  doth  by  the  terms  deber  and 
ruach  in  Hebrew,  logos  and  pnewna  in  Greek,  and 
in  English,  word  and  spirit,  or  speech  and  breath,  or 
reason  and  vital  activity  or  ejftcience." 

"  Thus  I  have  represented  the  clearest  and  best 
ideas  I  have  yet  attained  concerning  the  Spirit  of 
God,  who  is  generally  called  the  third  person  in  the 
sacred  Trinity.  As  Christ,  in  his  divine  nature,  is 
represented  as  the  eternal  word  or  wisdom  of  the 
Father,  which  perhaps  may  include  in  it  the  power 
of  knowledge,  or  knowledge  and  volition  ;  so  the 
Spirit  seems  to  be  another  divine  power,  which  may 
be  called  the  power  of  efficience.  And  though  it  is 
sometimes  described  in  Scripture  as  a  personal  agent, 
after  the  manner  of  Jewish  and  Eastern  writers,  yet 
if  we  put  all  the  Scriptures  relating  to  this  subject 
together,  and  view  them  in  a  correspondent  light,  the 
Spirit  of  God  does  not  seem  to  be  described  as  a 
distinct  spirit  from  the  Father,  or  as  another  con- 
scious mind,  but  as  an  eternal,  essential  power,  be- 
longing to  the  Father,  whereby  all  things  are  effect- 


DOCTOR    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  141 

ed  ;  and  thus  the  supreme  godhead  of  the  blessed 
Spirit  is  maintained  in  its  glory." 

This,  you  perceive,  is  pure  Sabellianism,  or  Unita- 
rianism  in  its  simplest  form.  The  Unitarian  believes 
in  the  godhead  of  the  Spirit  in  this  sense,  —  that  it  is 
God  himself,  just  as  the  spirit  of  man  is  man  himself. 
This  accords  precisely  with  the  comparison  of  Paul  : 
—  u  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save 
the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him  ?  Even  so  the  things 
of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God." 

But  having  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  "  an  eternal,  essential  power  belong- 
ing to  the  Father,"  it  was  natural  that  so  conscien- 
tious a  man  as  Doctor  Watts,  who  had  composed  so 
many  doxologies  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  should  feel 
some  anxiety  as  to  the  propriety  of  making  the  Holy 
Ghost  a  distinct  object  of  worship.  In  the  course  of 
his  inquiry,  he  states  his  conclusion  in  the  form  of  an 
objection  to  the  practice  of  ascribing  divine  honors  to 
the  Holy  Ghost.     He  then  answers  the  objection. 

"  Objection.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  be  properly  a 
power  of  the  Divine  nature,  or  a  distinct  principle  of 
action,  and  not  a  real  and  proper  person,  or  distinct 
intelligent  being,  how  can  we  offer  a  doxology  to  the 
Spirit,  and  ascribe  honor  and  glory  to  him,  together 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  ? 

"  Answer  I.  Though  I  think  it  may  be  very 
proper,  upon  some  occasions,  to  join  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  a  doxology,  and  to  offer  glory  and  praise  to  him, 


142  DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN. 

together  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  yet  I  think  it 
may  be  affirmed,  that  there  is  not  any  one  plain  and 
express  instance  in  all  the  Scripture  of  a  doxology 
directly  and  distinctly  addressed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Perhaps  one  reason,  among  others,  may  be,  because 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  considered  as  God- 
man,  are  proper  distinct  persons,  while  the  proper, 
distinct,  and  real  character  of  the  Spirit  is  that  of  a 
divine  power  or  principle  of  action,  and  it  is  only 
personalized  by  idioms  of  speech. 

u  Now,  though  there  may  be  two  or  three  exam- 
ples of  such  a  doxology  in  the  writers  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  and  though  it  may  be  properly  prac- 
tised in  many  cases,  yet  if  there  be  neither  precept 
nor  pattern  for  it  in  Scripture,  it  ought  not  to  be  es- 
teemed so  constant  and  so  necessary  a  part  of  wor- 
ship as  modern  ages  have  made  it,  and  as  I  once 
thought  it  to  be." 

"  Answer  II.  Since  I  believe  the  Spirit  of  God 
to  be  coeternal  with  God,  and  essential  and  necessa- 
ry to  his  very  being,  and  in  that  sense  true  God, 
and  since  he  is  represented  in  Scripture  in  a  personal 
manner,  or  under  the  character  of  a  distinct  person, 
therefore  forms  of  praise  may  be  lawfully  addressed 
to  him,  as  well  as  peculiar  blessings  may  be  said  to 
descend  from  him.  Though  the  Scripture  has  not 
taught  us  distinctly  to  offer  praise  and  honor  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  yet  it  has  taught  us  to  hearken  to  the 
voice  of  the  Spirit,  to  obey  the  Spirit,  to  hope  and 


DOCTOR   WATTS   A    UNITARIAN.  143 

wait  for  the  enlightening,  the  sanctifying,  and  the 
comforting  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  to  resist 
him  ;  and  since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  true  God,  I  think 
it  follows,  by  evident  consequence,  that  we  may  offer 
him  the  sacrifice  of  praise  for  the  blessings  which  he 
bestows.  There  is  no  more  necessity  that  he  should 
be  a  real,  proper,  distinct  person,  or  another  con- 
scious mind,  in  order  to  receive  such  addresses,  than 
in  order  to  bestow  such  blessings.  A  figurative  per- 
sonality is  sufficient  for  both. 

"  Answer  III.  I  add  yet  further,  that  if  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit  had  never  been  represented  in  a  personal 
manner  in  Scripture,  yet  a  distinct  power  of  the  Di- 
vine nature  may  surely  be  as  proper  an  object  of 
doxology  as  a  divine  attribute  or  perfection,  which 
does  not  seem  to  carry  in  the  idea  of  it  so  great  a 
distinction  as  a  divine  power.  I  think  there  is  no 
impropriety  in  ascribing  praise  and  glory  to  the  wis- 
dom or  the  grace  of  God.  May  we  not  properly 
use  such  language  as  this  :  —  '  We  give  thanks  to 
the  grace  of  God  '  ;  '  Let  us  give  praise  to  the  al- 
mighty power  of  God  '  ;  c  Glory  be  given  to  God 
and  his  mercy  '  ;  '  Let  God  the  Father,  and  his 
eternal  wisdom,  and  his  love,  be  glorified  for  ever '  ? 
Now,  if  these  expressions  may  be  sometimes  used 
on  particular  occasions  with  propriety  and  devotion, 
though  we  are  not  necessarily  bound  to  use  them,  I 
see  no  reason  why  we  may  not,  upon  particular  oc- 
casions, ascribe  glory  to  God  the  Father,  to  his  eter- 


144  DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

nal  Word,  and  his  almighty  Spirit,  even  though  the 
Word,  together  with  the  Spirit,  considered  purely  in 
their  divine  nature,  may  be  really  distinct  principles 
of  action  in  the  godhead,  and  not  real,  proper,  dis- 
tinct beings. 

"  It  may  be  still  further  argued  :  Suppose  the 
powers,  or  even  the  attributes  or  agencies  of  God, 
were  expressed  in  yet  more  metaphorical  language, 
yet  they  might  lawfully  be  doxologized.  May  we 
not  say,  c  Glory  be  to  God  and  his  victorious  arm  } ; 
or  '  to  his  watchful  eye  '  ?  Or,  may  we  not  ascribe 
?  glory  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  their  coun- 
sels of  mercy,'  and  such  like  ?  Surely,  then,  the 
blessed  Spirit,  whatsoever  be  his  philosophical  char- 
acter or  idea  in  the  godhead,  may  receive  ascriptions 
of  glory  with  as  much  propriety. 

"  But  if  all  these  considerations  were  not  sufficient 
to  make  us  allow  of  doxologies  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
I  say,  in  the  last  place, 

"  Answer  IV.  As  in  some  Scriptures  the  Spirit 
of  God  seems  to  include  in  it  the  whole  idea  of  god- 
head, acting  by  the  blessed  Spirit,  why  may  we  not 
ascribe  glory  to  the  blessed  Spirit  under  this  idea  ? 
May  we  not  say,  '  Glory  be  given  to  God,  who 
sanctifies  and  comforts  us  by  his  blessed  Spirit,'  as 
well  as  c  Glory  to  him  who  sustains  the  supreme  dig- 
nity of  godhead  under  the  idea  of  a  father  '  ?  Per- 
haps, if  this  sense  be  put  upon  the  words,  it  may 
please  some  persons  better,  who  are  sincere  and  zeal- 


DOCTOR    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  145 

ous  believers  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  orthodox  explication  ;  for  this 
idea  of  the  Spirit  approaches  nearer  to  the  orthodox 
scheme,  wherein  the  whole  divine  essence  is  included 
in  each  person,  together  with  a  distinct  modality  of 
that  essence  which  is  called  the  personality.  Upon 
any  of  these  principles  which  I  have  mentioned,  there 
is  sufficient  ground  for  a  doxology  to  be  given  to  the 
blessed  Spirit,  without  supposing  him  to  be  a  distinct 
intelligent  being,  or  another  mind." 

One  of  the  greatest  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  to  a  person  who  conceives 
of  God  as  one  pure  Spirit,  has  been  the  idea  of 
derivation  contained  in  it.  The  Athanasian  creed, 
which  is  a  scholastic  statement  of  the  Trinity,  asserts 
that  the  Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Doc- 
tor Watts  perceived  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  his 
theory  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  being  "  two  eternal, 
essential  powers  belonging  to  the  Father,"  with  the 
common  hypothesis  of  derivation.  He  notices  the 
incongruity,  not  to  retract  his  own  conclusion,  but  to 
call  in  question  the  hypothesis  of  derivation  itself,  as 
something,  if  not  unintelligible,  at.  least  too  incompre- 
hensible for  his  understanding.  The  turning  point  of 
the  proof  that  Doctor  Watts  was  a  Unitarian  is  his 
admission  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  person,  but  a 
personification  of  an  "  eternal,  essential  power  be- 
longing to  the  Father."  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that 
10 


146  DOCTOR    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN. 

his  understanding  rebelled  against  the  derivation  of  a 
mere  personification. 

u  Objection.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  be  properly  a 
power,  or  principle  of  agency  in  the  Divine  nature, 
how  can  it  be  said,  according  to  the  common  doc- 
trine of  divines,  that  he  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  ? 

u  Answer  I.  It  was  proper,  in  the  objection,  to 
name  the  common  doctrine  of  divines,  and  not  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  for  the  text  from  which  this  is 
derived,  John  fifteenth,  twenty-sixth,  only  saith  that 
the  Spirit  cometh  forth,  or  proceedeth  from  the  Fa- 
ther, and  that  he  is  sent  by  the  Son.  But  the 
Scripture  never  says  that  the  Spirit,  as  to  his  nature, 
proceeds  from  the  Son  ;  no,  nor  properly  from  the 
Father,  as  to  his  nature,  though  his  mission  is  orig- 
inally from  the  Father  ;  and  perhaps  it  is  in  this 
sense  that  he  is  described  in  Scripture  as  proceeding 
from  the  Father,  because  he  is  the  divine,  efficient 
power  of  the  Father,  which  is  employed  in  all  divine 
operations. 

"  The  notion  of  the  Spirit's  procession  or  deriva- 
tion, as  to  his  essence  and  personality,  both  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  how  current  so  ever  it  has  been, 
is  not  a  plain  and  express  Scriptural  doctrine,  but  a 
human  inference  drawn  from  this  doubtful  argument, 
viz.  :  —  c  That  if  the  Spirit  be  sent  by  the  Son  as 
to  his  commission  in  the  economy,  he  must  proceed 
from  the  Son  as  to  his  nature,  existence,  or  person- 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN.  147 

alky.'  But  this  argument,  if  thoroughly  examined, 
has  no  great  force  in  it.  The  Greek  churches  were 
not  influenced  by  it  ;  for  in  elder  and  later  days  they 
have  supposed  the  Spirit  to  proceed  from  the  Father 
only,  though  they  confess  he  is  sent  by  the  Son,  as 
well  as  by  the  Father  ;  and  this  seems  to  come  nearer 
to  the  plain  and  express  language  of  Scripture. 

"  The  common  explication  of  the  eternal  genera- 
tion of  the  Son,  and  eternal  procession  of  the  Spirit 
from  the  Father  and  Son,  which  was  authorized  in 
the  Latin  churches,  was  derived  down  to  us  from  the 
Popish  schoolmen  ;  though  it  is  now  become  a  part 
of  the  established,  or  orthodox  faith,  in  most  of  the 
Protestant  nations,  because  at  the  Reformation  they 
knew  no  better  way  to  explain  the  doctrine  of  the  sa- 
cred Trinity.  They  contented  themselves  to  say  it 
was  incomprehensible,  and  thus  forbid  all  further  in- 
quiries. But  this  scholastic,  Popish  explication  of 
the  manner  of  the  derivation  of  the  Son  and  Spirit 
from  the  Father  is,  perhaps,  the  most  inconceivable 
and  indefensible  part  of  all  the  common  scheme  of 
the  Trinity  which  is  called  orthodox.  I  heartily 
agree  to  several  other  parts  of  it,  viz.  :  —  c  That 
God  is  one  infinite  and  eternal  spirit,  or  conscious 
being.  That  the  Divine  essence  is  but  one  and  the 
same,  though  distinguished  into  three  sacred  per- 
sons.' But  their  account  of  the  generation  and  the 
procession,  that  is,  of  the  manner  of  the  derivation 
of  the  Word  and   Spirit  from  the  Father,  seems  to 


148  DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

me,  at  present,  to  be  a  set  of  words,  of  which  I  can 
attain  no# ideas,  invented  by  subtle  and  metaphysical 
schoolmen,  to  guard  and  fence,  as  far  as  possible, 
against  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  and  was  never 
designed  to  convey  a  clear  conception  to  the  mind 
of  Christians.  Let  us  take  a  short  survey  of  what 
this  scholastic  notion  is. 

"  The  most  approved  writers  represent  it  thus  :  — 
(  That  the  generation  of  the  Son  is  the  Father's 
communication  of  his  own  selfsame,  individual,  self- 
existent  essence  to  the  Son,  together  with  the  per- 
sonal property  of  being  begotten,  in  and  by  which 
property  he  differs  from  the  Father.'  And,  '  That 
the  procession  of  the  Spirit  is  a  communication  of 
the  selfsame  individual,  self-existent  essence,  both 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  unto  the  Spirit,  to- 
gether with  the  personal  property  of  spiration,  or 
proceeding,  by  which  property  he  differs  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son.' 

u  How  strange  so  ever  this  language  appears  to 
persons  who  seek  for  ideas  together  with  words,  I 
seriously  profess  this  is  the  justest,  truest,  and,  I 
think,  the  plainest  description  that  I  can  give  of  this 
opinion.  If  it  be  possible  to  make  it  plainer,  I  will 
repeat  the  same  in  another  form  of  words. 

"  The  scholastic  scheme  supposes  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  to  be  a  sort  of  repetition  of  the 
selfsame  numerical  Divine  essence  of  the  Father,  to- 
gether with  some  new  personal  property,  called  filia- 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  149 

tion,  which  joined  to  the  Divine  essence  makes  up  the 
person  of  the  Son.  And  that  this  repetition  or  re- 
production of  the  same  Divine  essence  with  its  new 
personality  is  owing  to  the  Father  only. 

"  It  also  supposes  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  another  sort  of  repetition  of  the  self- 
same numerical  Divine  essence  of  the  Father,  togeth- 
er with  some  new  personal  property,  called  proces- 
sion, which,  joined  to  the  Divine  essence,  makes  up 
the  person  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  that  this  rep- 
etition or  reproduction  of  the  same  Divine  essence 
with  its  new  personality  is  owing  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son  conjointly  ;  or,  as  some  rather  say,  it  is 
from  the  Father  as  the  original  principle,  by  the  Son 
as  a  medium. 

"  There  have  been  some  witers,  indeed,  who  thought 
it  was  not  proper  to  say  of  the  Divine  essence  itself 
that  it  did  generate,  or  could  be  generated  or  de- 
rived ;  and  therefore  they  supposed  only  the  person- 
ality of  the  Son  to  be  generated,  or  derived  from  the 
Father,  and  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  to  proceed 
or  be  derived  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  But 
when  you  inquire  what  these  personalities  are,  they 
can  only  tell  you  that  it  is  filiation,  or  sonship,  and 
spiration,  or  procession.  Upon  the  whole,  there- 
fore, according  to  this  opinion,  it  is  sonship  is  gen- 
erated, and  procession  proceeds.  But  the  generality 
of  the  scholastic  or  orthodox  Trinitarians  go  into 
the  former  sentiments,  of  the  generation  and  proces- 


150  DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

sion  of  the  Divine  essence  itself,  together  with  the 
distinct  personalities. 

"  With  a  solemn  and  unfeigned  veneration  I  rev- 
erence the  names  and  memories  of  those  excellent 
men,  those  learned  and  pious  authors  of  the  last  age, 
who  asserted  and  defended  these  opinions.  Nor  do 
I  think  the  devotion,  and  zeal,  and  piety,  of  our  pres- 
ent times  equal  to  theirs.  But  when  I  inquire  of 
my  own  heart,  whether  ever  I  could  form  any  ideas 
of  all  this  sort  of  language,  while  I  was  taught  it  in 
my  younger  days,  and  firmly  assented  to  these 
sounds,  I  must  honestly  confess  I  could  not.  Some- 
times I  was  ready  to  inquire  further  ;  but  then  I  sat- 
isfied all  my  inquisitive  thoughts  with  this  general  no- 
tion, that  it  was  incomprehensible.  I  found  it  suffi- 
ciently evident  in  Scripture,  that  the  Father  was 
God,  that  the  Son  was  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  God  ;  and  that  they  were  usually  represented  in 
Scripture  as  three  persons.  And  though  I  had  no 
distinct  idea  of  the  modus  of  it,  yet  I  thought  my- 
self sufficiently  defended  and  intrenched  in  the  forms 
of  scholastic  language,  and  armed  with  that  set  of 
phrases  which  make  up  this  part  of  the  common  or 
orthodox  explication,  without  being  too  solicitous 
about  conceiving  that  which  was  asserted  to  be  utter- 
ly inconceivable." 

I  am  persuaded  that  no  fair-minded  person,  after 
reading  this,  can  ever  again  believe  that  the  writer  of 
it  was  a  Trinitarian,  as  that  word  is  generally  under- 


DOCTOR    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  151 

stood.  And  yet,  while  he  himself  had  substantially- 
renounced  the  Trinity,  still  his  Psalms  and  Hymns, 
the  copy-right  of  which  he  had  sold,  were  not  con- 
verting, but  educating,  by  the  mere  force  of  author- 
ity and  repetition,  thousands  and  thousands  into  the 
very  belief  which  he  had  given  up  as  not  counte- 
nanced by  Scripture  or  reason.  The  Christian 
world  went  on  worshipping  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a 
person,  in  the  use  of  the  Hymns  of  Doctor  Watts, 
when  he  himself  had  become  convinced  that  it  was  a 
mere  personification. 

The  contemporaries  of  a  man  are  the  best  judges 
of  the  significance  and  tendency  of  his  writings. 
His  biographer  subjoins  the  following  note  to  his 
writings  on  the  Trinity  :  —  "  Those,  who  wish  to 
see  what  some  of  Doctor  Watts's  pious  and  learned 
contemporaries  thought  of  his  Trinitarian  writings, 
may  peruse  Dr.  Abraham  Taylor's  '  Scripture 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  vindicated,  in  Opposition  to 
Mr.  Watts's  Scheme  of  One  Divine  Person  and  Two 
Divine  Powers.'  Mr.  Hurrion,  also,  a  very  able 
writer,  published  a  set  of  discourses,  entitled,  *  The 
Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Proper  Divinity,  Real 
Personality,  &c,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  stated  and 
defended.'" 

With  regard  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity, 
Doctor  Watts's  inquiries  led  him  to  abandon  the 
common  hypothesis  as  to  the  distinct  subsistence 
and  personality  of  what  is  usually  termed  the  divine 


152  DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN. 

nature  of  Christ.  The  only  divine  nature  which  he 
considered  the  Scriptures  to  teach  as  existing  in 
Christ  was  the  in-dwelling  of  the  whole  Deity. 

His  sentiments  on  this  subject  are  brought  out  in 
a  distinct  treatise,  which  he  published  under  the  fol- 
lowing title  :  —  "  Useful  and  Important  Questions 
concerning  Jesus  the  Son  of  God."  In  that  trea- 
tise he  first  institutes  the  inquiry,  whether  the  ex- 
pression "  Son,"  and  "  Son  of  God,"  applied  to 
Christ,  were  intended  to  assert  any  participation  in 
the  essence  of  God.  This  he  conclusively  proves 
in  the  negative.  He  enumerates  five  different  senses 
in  which  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  has  been  alleged 
to  be  applied  to  Christ.  The  first  of  them,  which 
is  that  of  participation  in  Deity,  he  emphatically  re- 
jects. 

"  The  first  of  these  senses  is  patronized  by  many 
writers,  viz.  :  —  '  That  an  eternal,  inconceivable 
generation  of  the  person  of  the  Son,  by  the  person 
of  the  Father,  in  the  sameness  of  the  Divine  es- 
sence, consubstantial,  coequal,  and  coeternal  with 
the  Father,  is  included  in  the  name  Son  of  God.' 

u  But  I  am  persuaded  that  this  can  never  be  the 
sense  of  this  name  in  those  several  texts  before  cited  ; 
they  can  never  signify  that  it  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion to  believe  Christ  to  be  the  4  eternal  Son  of 
God,'  as  a  distinct  person  in  the  same  Divine  es- 
sence, proceeding  from  the  Father  by  such  an  eter- 
nal and  incomprehensible  generation.     For, 


DOCTOR    WATTS    A   UNITARIAN.  153 

lf  I.  If  this  be  ever  so  true,  yet  it  is  confessed  to 
be  inconceivable.  Now,  if  it  be  so  very  inconceiv- 
able, so  mysterious  and  sublime  a  doctrine,  then  I 
do  not  think  the  gracious  God  would  put  such  a  dif- 
ficult test  upon  the  faith  of  young  disciples,  poor, 
illiterate  men  and  women,  in  the  very  beginning  of 
the  Gospel,  and  exclude  them  from  heaven  for  not 
believing  it. 

"  II.  Nor,  indeed,  is  this  eternal  generation  and 
consubstantial  sonship  clearly  enough  revealed  in 
Scripture  for  us  to  make  it  a  fundamental  article  in 
any  age,  and  to  damn  all  who  do  not  receive  it.  I 
cannot  see  evidence  enough  in  the  word  of  God  to 
make  the  salvation  of  all  mankind,  the  poor  and  the 
ignorant,  the  laboring  men  and  the  children,  even  in 
such  a  day  of  knowledge  as  this  is,  to  depend  on 
such  a  doctrine,  which  the  most  learned  and  pious 
Christians  in  all  ages  have  confessed  to  be  attended 
with  so  many  difficulties,  —  which,  after  the  labor  and 
study  of  near  fourteen  hundred  years,  is  so  incon- 
ceivable in  itself,  and  was  at  first  so  obscurely  re- 
vealed ;  much  less  can  I  suppose  this  notion  of  the 
Son  of  God  could  be  made  a  necessary  and  funda- 
mental article  in  those  dawnings  of  the  Gospel-day." 

As  a  counterpart  to  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  three  persons  in  the  Deity,  it  has  been  gen- 
erally maintained  that  the  distinction  between  them 
was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  admit  of  personal  inter- 
course.    They  could  converse  together  and  make 


154  DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN. 

mutual  stipulations.  In  the  theology  which  was  cur- 
rent in  the  age  of  Doctor  Watts,  there  were  long 
conversations  imagined  to  have  taken  place  between 
God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son,  in  relation  to  the 
redemption  of  mankind. 

With  the  views  which  he  had  adopted,  all  such 
representations  could  not  seem  less  than  absurd.  In 
the  course  of  his  inquiry,  he  takes  up  the  question 
whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  such  representa- 
tions. He  comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  is  none 
whatever. 

"  The  common  or  scholastic  explication  of  the 
Trinity,  which  has  been  long  universally  received  by 
our  Protestant  writers,  and  has  been  called  orthodox 
for  these  several  hundred  years,  is  this,  viz.  :  —  That 
God  is  but  one  simple,  infinite,  and  eternal  Spirit. 
Hence  it  follows,  that  the  Divine  essence,  powers, 
and  essential  properties  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Spirit,  in  the  godhead,  are  numerically  the  very 
same  essence,  powers,  and  essential  properties  ; 
that  it  is  the  same  numerical  consciousness,  under- 
standing, will,  and  power,  which  belongs  to  the  Fa- 
ther, that  belongs  also  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  and  that  the  sacred  Three  are  distinguished 
only  by  the  superadded,  relative  properties  of  pater- 
nity, filiation,  and  procession  ;  but  their  thoughts, 
ideas,  volitions,  and  agencies,  according  to  this  hy- 
pothesis, must  be  the  very  same  numerical  thoughts, 
ideas,  actions,  and  volitions,  in  all  the  sacred  Three." 


DOCTOR    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  155 

He  then  goes  on  to  quote  from  a  sermon  by 
Flavel,  a  popular  sermonizer  of  those  times,  in 
which  he  details  the  stipulations  of  a  covenant  made 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world.  " Consider,"  says  Flavel,  "the 
persons  transacting  and  dealing  with  each  other  in 
this  covenant.  These  are  God  the  Father,  and  God 
the  Son,  the  former  as  a  creditor,  the  latter  as  a 
surety.  The  Father  stands  upon  satisfaction,  the 
Son  engages  to  give  it,"  &c. 

"  Now,  in  reading  over  such  accounts,"  says 
Doctor  Watts,  "  of  stipulation  and  contract  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  what  proper  conceptions  can  we  frame,  or 
what  clear  ideas  can  we  possibly  have,  while  we  sup- 
pose nothing  but  Christ's  divine  nature  transacting 
this  affair  with  the  Father  ;  and  while,  at  the  same 
time,  we  believe  the  Divine  essence,  perfections,  and 
powers,  the  understanding,  will,  thought,  and  con- 
sciousness, of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  to  be  nu- 
merically one  and  the  same,  since  in  the  godhead, 
or  Divine  nature,  they  are  but  one  and  the  same  in- 
finite Spirit  ?  The  mere  personalities,  viz.  pater- 
nity and  filiation,  cannot  consult  and  transact  these 
affairs  in  a  way  of  contract,  proposal,  and  consent. 
It  is  nothing  but  two  distinct  consciousnesses  and 
two  distinct  wills  can  enter  into  such  a  covenant  ; 
but  in  the  common  explication  of  the  Trinity,  the 
distinct  personalities  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  do 


156  DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

not  make  any  real  distinct  consciousnesses  or  distinct 
wills  in  the  one  infinite  Spirit. 

u  And  let  it  be  further  noted,  also,  that,  according 
to  several  of  the  articles  of  this  covenant,  one  of 
these  beings  or  persons  covenanting  seems  to  be  in- 
ferior to  the  other,  and  to  be  capable  of  receiving  or- 
ders, commission,  support,  and  recompense  from  the 
other.  But  if  only  the  deity  of  Christ  existed  at 
that  time,  and  the  deity  of  Christ  and  of  the  Father 
have  but  one  and  the  same  numerical  consciousness 
and  volition,  one  and  the  same  numerical  power  and 
glory,  what  need  of  orders  and  commissions,  what 
need  of  promises  of  support  and  recompense  ?  How 
can  the  pure  godhead  of  Christ  be  supported  or  be 
recompensed  by  the  Father,  who  has  eternally  the 
same  numerical  glory  and  power  ? 

"  In  short,  all  these  sacred  and  pathetic  represen- 
tations of  stipulation  and  articles,  in  the  common 
scheme,  can  amount  to  no  more,  in  our  clear  ideas, 
and  in  a  proper  conception  of  things,  than  the  simple 
decree  or  volition  of  the  one  eternal,  infinite  Spirit. 

"  I  grant  we  may  suppose  the  great  God,  in  a  fig- 
urative manner  of  speech,  consulting  thus  with  his 
owTn  wisdom,  with  the  divine  powers  or  principles  of 
agency  in  his  own  nature,  as  a  man  may  be  figura- 
tively said  to  consult  with  his  own  understanding,  or 
reason,  or  conscience.  But,  in  literal  and  proper 
language,  it  seems  to  be  nothing  else  but  an  absolute 
decree  of  the  great  God,  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  157 

when  formed  and  united  to  godhead,  should  under- 
take and  fulfil  this  work,  four  thousand  years  after  this 
world  was  made.  And  thus,  according  to  the  common 
hypothesis,  that  very  intelligent  being  which  was  to 
come  into  flesh,  and  to  sustain  all  the  real  sufferings, 
gave  no  such  early  antecedent  consent  to  this  cov- 
enant. It  was  only  the  godhead  of  Christ,  which 
is  impassible  and  could  really  suffer  nothing,  did  de- 
cree that  the  human  nature  should  exist  hereafter, 
that  it  should  be  united  to  the  godhead,  and  should 
sustain  agonies  and  death  for  the  sins  of  men. 

u  I  would  inquire  further,  also,  according  to  this 
explication  of  things,  what  possible  difference  can  we 
conceive  between  the  love  of  the  Father  in  sending 
his  Son,  and  the  love  of  the  Son  in  consenting  to  be 
sent  on  this  compassionate  errand,  if  there  were  not 
two  distinct  consciousnesses  and  two  distinct  wills, 
if  it  was  only  one  simple,  numerical  volition  of  the 
great  God  ?  And  how  doth  this  abate  our  grand 
ideas  of  the  distinct  and  condescending  love  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  in  his  consent  to  this  covenant, 
since  that  part  of  him  which  really  suffered,  that  is, 
his  inferior  nature,  had  then  no  existence,  and  there- 
fore could  give  no  consent  to  this  early  covenant  of 
redemption  ? " 

At  the  time  when  Doctor  Watts  lived,  Biblical 
criticism  had  scarcely  begun  to  be  cultivated,  and, 
according  to  the  principles  of  interpretation  then  re- 
ceived, he  considered  himself  obliged  to  understand 


158  DOCTOR   WATTS    A    UNITARIAN. 

in  their  literal  sense  those  passages  in  which  Christ 
speaks  of  himself  as  "  having  come  down  from 
heaven,"  as  uhaving  been  in  heaven,"  &c.  To  ac- 
count for  these  passages,  he  considered  the  human 
soul  of  Christ  to  have  preexisted,  and  to  have  come 
into  the  world.  The  common  supposition,  that  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ  left  heaven  and  came  on  earth, 
he  treats  as  an  utter  impossibility,  wholly  inconsistent 
with  the  very  nature  of  Deity. 

"  For  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  how  distinct 
so  ever  it  is  supposed  to  be  from  God  the  Father, 
yet  can  never  leave  the  Father's  bosom,  can  never 
divest  itself  of  any  one  joy  or  felicity  that  it  was  ever 
possessed  of,  nor  lose  even  the  least  degree  of  it  ; 
nor  could  God  the  Father  ever  dismiss  the  divine 
nature  of  his  Son  from  his  own  bosom.  Godhead 
must  have  eternal  and  complete  beatitude,  joy,  and 
glory,  and  can  never  be  dispossessed  of  it.  God- 
head can  sustain  no  real  sorrow,  suffering,  or  pain. 
The  utmost  that  can  be  said  concerning  the  deity  of 
Christ  is,  that  there  is  a  relative  imputation  of  the 
sorrows,  sufferings,  and  pains  of  the  human  nature 
to  the  divine,  because  of  the  union  between  them  ; 
so  that  the  sufferings  acquire  a  sort  of  divine  dignity 
and  merit  hereby.  It  is  granted,  indeed,  that  this 
relative  and  imputative  suffering  may  be  sufficient  in 
a  legal  sense  to  advance  the  dignity  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  to  a  complete  and  equivalent  satisfaction 
for  sin  ;  yet  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  love  of 


DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN.  159 

the  Father  and  the  Son  does  not  seem  to  be  so  sen- 
sibly manifested  to  us  hereby,  for  all  this  abasement 
of  the  godhead  of  Christ  is  merely  relative,  and  not 
real. 

"  And  as  it  is  plain  that  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  could  not  be  separated  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Father  when  he  came  into  this  world  and  took  flesh 
upon  him,  so  neither  could  the  human  nature  leave 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  if  it  had  no  prior  existence 
and  was  never  there.  Therefore,  in  the  common 
scheme,  all  this  glorious  and  pathetic  representation 
of  the  love  of  Christ,  in  leaving  the  joys  and  glories 
of  heaven,  when  he  came  to  Wwell  upon  earth,  has 
no  ideas  belonging  to  it,  and  it  can  be  true  in  no 
sense,  since  it  can  neither  be  attributed  to  the  human 
nor  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  nor  to  his  whole 
person.  I  grant,  that,  by  the  figure  of  communication 
of  properties,  what  is  true  of  one  nature  may  be  at- 
tributed to  the  whole  person,  or  sometimes  to  the 
other  nature  ;  yet  that  which  is  not  true  concerning 
either  nature  of  Christ  separated,  nor  concerning  the 
two  natures  united,  cannot  be  attributed  to  him  at  all. 
So  that  '  parting  with  the  bosom  of  his  Father,' 
and  '  forsaking  the  joys  and  glories  he  possessed 
there,'  are,  according  to  the  common  scheme,  words 
of  which  we  have  no  ideas." 

The  only  remaining  part  of  the  discussion,  from 
which  I  have  space  to  quote,  is  that  in  which  he  clear- 
ly proves  that  Christ  had  no  such  divine  nature  as  is 


160  DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN. 

usually  conceived  of  as  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity.  The  only  divine  nature  which  he  had  was 
the  indwelling  of  the  whole  Deity  in  him.  He  en- 
ters upon  the  inquiry  by  the  formal  statement  of  the 
question,  —  "  Is  the  godhead  of  Christ  and  the  god- 
head of  the  Father  one  and  the  same  godhead  ?  " 

"  If  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  be  another  distinct 
principle  of  self-consciousness  and  volition,  another 
distinct  spiritual  being,  or  another  spirit,  this  ap- 
proaches so  near  to  the  doctrine  of  another  God, 
that  it  is  very  hard  to  distinguish  it.  For,  so  far  as 
our  ideas  of  arithmeto  and  reason  can  reach,  this 
seems  to  be  a  plain  timh  :  —  'If  one  infinite  spirit  be 
one  God,  two  or  three  infinite  spirits  must  be  two  or 
three  gods.'  And  though  the  patrons  of  this  opin- 
ion suppose  these  three  spirits  to  be  so  nearly  united 
as  to  be  called  one  God,  merely  to  avoid  the  charge 
of  polytheism,  yet  it  must  be  granted  that  this  one 
God  must,  then,  be  one  complex  infinite  being,  or 
spirit,  made  up  of  three  single  infinite  beings  or  spir- 
its ;  which  is  such  a  notion  of  the  one  true  God  as  I 
think  reason  nor  revelation  will  admit.  And  yet,  if 
this  were  the  true  notion  of  the  one  God,  it  is  very 
strange  that  Scripture  should  not  clearly  and  express- 
ly reveal  it. 

"  When  Christ  expresses  his  own  godhead  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  by  declaring  his  oneness  with 
the  Father,  that  is,  the  union  of  the  man  Christ  Je- 
sus with  the  same  godhead  that  is  in  the  Father.     '  I 


DOCTOR   WATTS   A   UNITARIAN.  161 

and  the  Father  are  one.'  —  John  tenth,  thirtieth. 
'  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  ;  I 
am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ;  the  Father 
that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works.'  —  John 
fourteenth,  ninth,  tenth.  And  it  must  be  observed, 
that  there  is  not  any  place  in  the  New  Testament 
where  the  miraculous  works  of  Christ  are  ascribed  to 
any  distinct  godhead  of  his  own,  different  from  the 
godhead  of  the  Father,  or  the  godhead  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  that  dwelt  in  him.  And  it  is  not  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  Christ  would  have  always  used  these 
modes  of  speaking,  and  attributed  his  own  works  to 
the  Father  and  his  Spirit,  if  he  himself  had  another 
godhead  or  divine  nature  different  from  that  of  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit.  For  why  should  his  mirac- 
ulous works  be  attributed  to  the  aid  of  another  infi- 
nite spirit,  which  was  not  united  to  the  man  Jesus, 
and  never  be  ascribed  at  all  to  that  distinct  spirit 
which  is  supposed  to  be  united  to  him  ?  I  am  sure 
this  sort  of  representation  leads  our  thoughts  away 
from  supposing  Christ  to  have  any  godhead  at  all,  if 
it  be  not  the  same  as  the  Father's. 

"  If  the  godhead  of  Christ  be  another  distinct 
spiritual  being,  different  from  the  godhead  of  the  Fa- 
ther, I  do  not  see  any  fair  and  reasonable  manner 
how  the  Trinitarian  can  solve  the  difficulties  which 
arise  from  those  Scriptures  where  God  the  Father  is 
represented  as  the  only  true  God,  and  under  that  idea 
distinguished  from  Jesus  Christ  ;  as  John  seven- 
11 


162  DOCTOR    WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

teenth,  third,  —  c  To  know  thee,  the  only  true  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.'  First  Corin- 
thians eighth,  sixth,  —  'To  us  there  is  but  one  God, 

the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things, and  one 

Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things.'  Ephe- 
sians  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  — c  There  is  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.' 
Now,  we  can  scarce  suppose  the  highest  nature  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  be  another  infinite  spirit,  distinct  from 
God  the  Father,  without  excluding  it  from  godhead 
by  these  express  Scriptures  ;  but  they  may  easily  be 
explained  to  admit  Christ's  godhead,  if  we  suppose 
Christ  to  be  spoken  of  in  these  places  chiefly  in  his 
inferior  characters  as  man  and  mediator  ;  and  yet 
he  may  be  united  to,  and  inhabited  by,  the  one  true 
and  eternal  God,  who  is  at  other  times  called  the 
Father,  as  being  vested  with  different  relative  prop- 
erties, and  first  in  the  great  economy,  as  I  have  suf- 
ficiently shown  in  other  papers." 

If  any  one,  after  reading  these  extracts,  can  con- 
tinue to  count  Doctor  Watts  a  Trinitarian,  let  him 
read  his  solemn  "  Address  to  the  Deity,"  which 
was  prefixed  to  one  of  the  last  pamphlets  he  ever 
published.  In  it  you  will  perceive  the  breathings  of 
the  same  devotion  which  pervades  his  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  together  with  a  reluctance  to  abandon  his 
old  theological  opinions,  with  which  his  devotional 
feelings  had  become  early  associated.  In  one  part 
of  it,  there  is  a  striking  acknowledgment  that  the  doc- 


DOCTOR   WATTS    A   UNITARIAN.  163 

trine  of  the  Trinity  had  nearly  driven  him  into  in- 
fidelity. 

There  seems  to  be  something  almost  providential 
in  the  manner  in  which  this  prayer  has  been  pre- 
served, as  evidence  of  the  last  thoughts  of  Doctor 
JVatts.  It  was  prefixed  to  a  treatise  on  the  Trinity, 
containing  a  summary  of  all  he  had  ever  written  upon 
the  subject.  Fifty  copies  of  it  only  were  published. 
His  Orthodox  friends,  taking  the  alarm  lest  it  should 
destroy  his  popularity  and  injure  his  influence,  per- 
suaded him  to  recall  the  edition  and  commit  it  to  the 
flames.  One  copy  only  remained,  and  was  after- 
wards found  in  a  bookseller's  shop  at  Southampton, 
in  the  year  1796,  just  half  a  century  from  its  publica- 
tion. The  tract  was  entitled,  "  A  Faithful  Inquiry 
after  the  Ancient  and  Original  Doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles." 

Doctor  Lardner,  one  of  the  most  honest  of  men, 
who  had  the  best  means  of  knowing  his  sentiments, 
as  his  nephew  was  one  of  his  executors,  saw  him 
often  during  the  last  years  of  his  life,  and  had  the 
examination  of  his  papers  after  his  death,  testifies,  — 
"  The  last  thoughts  of  Doctor  Watts  were  com- 
pletely Unitarian." 

"  Dear  and  blessed  God  !  hadst  thou  been  pleased, 
in  any  one  plain  Scripture,  to  have  informed  me 
which  of  the  different  opinions  about  the  Holy  Trin- 
ity, among  the  contending  parties  of  Christians,  had 
been  true,  thou  knowest  with  how  much  zeal,  satis- 


164  DOCTOR    WATTS   A   UNITARIAN. 

faction,  and  joy  my  unbiased  heart  would  have 
opened  itself  to  receive  and  embrace  the  divine  dis- 
covery. Hadst  thou  told  me  plainly,  in  any  single 
text,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are 
three  real  distinct  persons  in  thy  Divine  nature,  I  had 
never  suffered  myself  to  be  bewildered  in  so  manv 
doubts,  nor  embarrassed  with  so  many  strong  fears 
of  assenting  to  the  mere  inventions  of  men,  instead  of 
Divine  doctrine  ;  but  I  should  have  humbly  and  im- 
mediately accepted  thy  words,  so  far  as  it  was  possible 
for  me  to  understand  them,  as  the  only  rule  of  my 
faith.  Or  hadst  thou  been  pleased  so  to  express  and 
include  this  proposition  in  the  several  scattered  parts 
of  thy  book,  from  whence  my  reason  and  conscience 
might  with  ease  find  out  and  with  certainty  infer  this 
doctrine,  I  should  have  joyfully  employed  all  my 
reasoning  powers,  with  their  utmost  skill  and  activ- 
ity, to  have  found  out  this  inference,  and  ingrafted  it 
into  my  soul." 

u  Thou  hast  taught  me,  Holy  Father,  by  thy 
prophets,  that  the  way  of  holiness  in  the  times  of  the 
Gospel,  or  under  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  shall 
be  a  highway,  a  plain  and  easy  path  ;  so  that  the 
wayfaring  man,  or  the  stranger,  '  though  a  fool,  shall 
not  err  therein.'  And  thou  hast  called  the  poor  and 
the  ignorant,  the  mean  and  the  foolish  things  of  this 
world,  to  the  knowledge  of  thyself  and  thy  Son,  and 
taught  them  to  receive  and  partake  of  the  salvation 
which  thou  hast  provided.     But  how  can  such  weak 


DOCTOR    WATTS   A   UNITARIAN.  165 

creatures  ever  take  in  so  strange,  so  difficult,  and  so 
abstruse  a  doctrine  as  this,  in  the  explication  and 
defence  whereof,  multitudes  of  men,  even  men  of 
learning  and  piety,  have  lost  themselves  in  infinite 
subtilties  of  dispute,  and  endless  mazes  of  darkness  ? 
And  can  this  strange  and  perplexing  notion  of  three 
real  persons  going  to  make  up  one  true  God  be  so 
necessary  and  so  important  a  part  of  that  Christian 
doctrine,  which,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New, 
is  represented  as  so  plain  and  so  easy,  even  to  the 
meanest  understandings  ?  " 

"  Great  God,  who  seest  all  things  !  thou  hast  be- 
held what  busy  temptations  have  been  often  fluttering 
about  my  heart,  to  call  it  off  from  these  laborious 
and  difficult  inquiries,  and  to  give  up  thy  word  and  thy 
Gospel  as  an  unintelligible  book,  and  betake  myself 
to  the  light  of  nature  and  reason  ;  but  thou  hast  been 
pleased  by  thy  Divine  power  to  scatter  these  temp- 
tations, and  fix  my  heart  and  hope  again  upon  that 
Saviour  and  that  eternal  life  which  thou  hast  revealed 
in  thy  word,  and  proposed  therein  to  our  knowledge 
and  our  acceptance.  Blessed  be  the  name  of  my 
God,  that  has  not  suffered  me  to  abandon  the  Gospel 
of  his  Son  Jesus  !  And  blessed  be  that  Holy  Spirit 
that  has  kept  me  attentive  to  the  truth  delivered  in 
thy  Gospel,  and  inclined  me  to  wait  longer  in  my 
search  of  these  Divine  truths,  under  the  hope  of  thy 
gracious  illumination  !  " 

Such  were  the  last  thoughts  of  a  pious  and  learned 


166  DOCTOR    WATTS   A    UNITARIAN. 

man,  after  more  than  twenty  years  of  examination  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  His  Psalms  and  Hymns 
were  comparatively  a  juvenile  work,  written  wholly, 
as  he  acknowledges,  while  he  was  under  the  influ- 
ence of  opinions  which  were  entirely  traditionary, 
and  adopted  by  him  without  even  comprehending  the 
terms  in  which  they  were  expressed. 

While  he  was  acknowledging  that  the  Trinity 
amounted  to  nothing  more  than  one  God  in  one  per- 
son and  two  divine  powers,  thousands  and  thousands 
were  appending  a  Trinitarian  doxology  to  the  Psalms 
of  David  on  his  authority,  — u  To  God  the  Father, 
God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Spirit,  three  in  one,"  — 
when  at  the  same  time  he  himself  had  given  up  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  acknowledged 
that  there  was  no  Scriptural  authority  for  addressing 
a  doxology  to  it  at  all,  any  more  than  there  is  for  ad- 
dressing a  doxology  to  God's  arm  or  eye  ! 


THE    END. 


s 


8  * 

3  si 


o  ^ 


YB  33769 


